Writes Glenn Reynolds in "The French are absolutely right to say ‘no thanks’ to US woke-ism" (NY Post).
१२ फेब्रुवारी, २०२१
"For academics playing word games, this is fun. For gangs of 'woke' students — or Times employees, who have managed to 'cancel' a series of the paper’s top writers recently — it can produce a feeling of enormous power and self-importance."
"But if you’re Macron or any sensible European observer, seeing a United States in which playing the national anthem or displaying the flag is deemed 'offensive' and 'problematic,' in which professors are suspended or threatened for quoting Supreme Court opinions verbatim when they contain unapproved language and which has seen months of urban riots tearing apart some of America’s biggest cities, how could you not say 'no thanks'?
By its fruit the tree is known, and the fruits of woke leftism in the United States have been poisonous. No honest observer could claim that our campuses are friendlier, our cities healthier or our institutions more productive as a result of its introduction.
The defenders of woke theory say that France is becoming more diverse, and that’s why it needs more of the overt race-consciousness and blame-assignment that their theory provides. But, of course, France’s increased diversity is precisely why it’s right to shun a philosophy of race that is affirmatively based on racial name-calling, division and guilt-mongering."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
Americans are saying No to wokeism, but you wouldn't know it if you listened to the Pravda media.
It's amazing to me that as a boy, we were indoctrinated to be afraid of Russia and assured that we "enjoy freedom of speech" that they don't. Today, I feel much more comfortable speaking freely in Russia than I do in the United States. Anyone on this blog besides me have a similar outlook? I mean I have literally told jokes involving Putin as a speaker at a sizeable event in Moscow. Would I dare to joke about the woke at a large business meeting today in the USA? Nope. Because I would like to keep doing business for a few more years.
By its fruit the tree is known, and the fruits of woke leftism in the United States have been poisonous.
I wish more people realized that.
The US President doesn't realize it. Shocking.
Nos pronoms sont le, la, l apostrophe et les
To woke the French language is to cancel all things France.
When even the French are calling the Americans morons...
no honest observer could claim that our campuses are friendlier, our cities healthier or our institutions more productive as a result of its introduction.
Yes, but improvement is not the goal. They tell us it isn't. The goal is transformation. They are succeeding at that and success breeds success...
It has long been the goal of the global elite to destroy America and its values. US officials and top military brass don't give a fat rat's ass for America or her people. They are in it for their own greedy globalist goals.
seeing a United States in which playing the national anthem or displaying the flag is deemed 'offensive' and 'problematic,'
Gee, Glenn, set up straw men much?
Of course Glenn would be concerned about being cancelled. He after all did say that genocide (including that of Native Americans) is "regrettable, but sometimes necessary".
Xiden sez:
"Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism.
Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face."
Keep in mind that "equity" means "equal results" (racial quotas). It doesn't mean "equal treatment" or "equal opportunity", in fact it means the opposite of those things.
So, if the French are standing firm against the ‘woke’ mentality are they no longer cheese eating surrender monkey’s? Asking for a friend.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
seeing a United States in which playing the national anthem or displaying the flag is deemed 'offensive' and 'problematic,'
Gee, Glenn, set up straw men much?
Freder, that seems to me reportage on Glenn's part, not editorial.
Oddly enough, when one approaches both government policies and societal interactions with a perspective that individual rights and individual liberty and individual worth are of fundamental importance, rather than collectivist identity, there is no insurmountable problem with people having free speech, practicing their religions, assembling for political or social reasons, writing and reading, and so on.
The basis of our government was supremacy of individual rights. Identity politics is political and social suicide under the US Constitution.
When even the French are calling the Americans morons.
Didja ever see the old Batman episode where Jerry Lewis sticks his head out a window while Batman and Robin, The Boy Wonder, are climbing up the wall and past the window with their not-quite-taut rope? Well, rumor has it that the French like Jerry Lewis a lot.
Freder, that seems to me reportage on Glenn's part, not editorial.
Yeah, I heard that weak excuse too. Kind of like Althouse excusing torture.
"Of course Glenn would be concerned about being cancelled. He after all did say that genocide (including that of Native Americans) is "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"."
I googled: glenn reynolds genocide "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"
Absolutely nothing came up.
You'd better put up the evidence very quickly Freder. That is character assassination. Link to specific proof of your assertion or take your comment down. Immediately.
Thanks for linking to Glenn's article.
Having just dropped Instapundit from my RSS reader, because the signal to noise ratio had degraded. I wouldn't have known of this article otherwise.
I just realized that my avatar is a French guy --->
;-(
Considering how much radical philosophy/ideas derive from French philosophers like Foucault and Derrida (as Jordan Peterson pointed out recently), France's sudden turn against wokeism is pretty amusing. But I guess we have to start somewhere, don't we?
You'd better put up the evidence very quickly Freder. That is character assassination. Link to specific proof of your assertion or take your comment down. Immediately.
I was paraphrasing and should not have put it in quotes. But you are just being hysterical. You know the post I am referring to because we had this conversation back in the day.
Here is a link. The original post on Instapundit has been conveniently put in the memory hole.
Nailed it, Professor Reynolds.
"You'd better put up the evidence very quickly Freder. That is character assassination. Link to specific proof of your assertion or take your comment down. Immediately."
It's something Freder read on the internet. Yeah...that's the ticket!
I googled: glenn reynolds genocide "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"
I hate it when people put quotes around, at best, a faulty memory, and with no link.
It was probably this stuff:
Reynolds: "Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide —[sic] unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”"
Emmanuel Macron’s courageous, grown-up stand: "I will be very clear. The Republic won't erase any name from its history. It will forget none of its artworks, it won't take down statues.”
"The sciences were a little late getting started, but now they’ve bought a first-class ticket on the train to Wokesville. After all, scientists, like everybody else, have a big fear of being called racists or bigots. Now many prestigious science journals, like Science, Nature, and Cell, are publishing woke pieces like an elephant with the trots."
Trotsky.
Freder, the thing you paraphrased is (thanks for the link):
"Civilized societies have always won against barbarians ever since the industrial revolution made making things a greater source of power than breaking them. Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”"
Do you think your paraphrase — "He after all did say that genocide (including that of Native Americans) is "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"" — was honest and fair. Would you advocate having the words of you, your family, and friends presented to the world using that kind of paraphrase? I'm asking quite apart from the totally false quotation marks which you only blandly "should not have put" in before you slap me as "hysterical." I'm guessing most people reading this are not siding with you. In fact, probably no one is siding with you. Calling me "hysterical" is a low — and arguably *sexist* — way to attempt to portray yourself as calm and reasonable. But you are not reasonable. You are doing something evil, and you show no remorse.
It looks like Freder was just paraphrasing the Kleiman commentary on Reynolds, and not paraphrasing Reynold's writings or thoughts.
If the 'barbarians' are give the option of adopting the conquering culture, it is not genocide. It is merely conquest.
@Fernandinande, yes, that's precisely what Freder linked to. Are you and I agreed that his paraphrase is not at all an accurate paraphrasing for Glenn's observation?
So Freder links to the contentious webpage of a dead man (which links to Instapundit February 12, 2021). The language that the dead man "quotes" is part of a larger argument--undated--about why history argues that vigorous military action in Afghanistan after 9/11 is merited to head off a larger disaster later.
Yup. That's it.
Freder--you and your kind will be gathering files on all of us.
Crawl back into your rathole.
"I will be very clear. The Republic won't erase any name from its history. It will forget none of its artworks, it won't take down statues.”
Of course, unlike Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis (and almost all other leaders of the Confederacy), France actually tried Petain (and others) for treason, and he died under confinement (although they allowed him to shift to house arrest because of his dementia).
Do you think your paraphrase — "He after all did say that genocide (including that of Native Americans) is "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"" — was honest and fair.
Yes, I do. After he was called out on that quote by many people (and it was in the 2003, '04 timeframe), he never disavowed the statement. He (and his buddy Mark Steyn) tried to justify it by claiming they weren't advocating genocide, just stating an unavoidable fact.
I see little difference between "regrettable, but sometimes necessary" and "unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps". Genocide is never unavoidable, nor provoked. That he cites the genocide of Native Americans as and example is particularly telling.
Calling me "hysterical" is a low — and arguably *sexist* — way to attempt to portray yourself as calm and reasonable. But you are not reasonable. You are doing something evil, and you show no remorse.
So in a post deriding woke culture, you are accusing me of not being woke? That's rich. I called you hysterical because I believe you knew exactly the post I was referring to.
And I am not calm and reasonable when it comes to Glenn Reynolds. The man is a horrible human being.
Would you advocate having the words of you, your family, and friends presented to the world using that kind of paraphrase?
Sheesh, that happens to me here regularly. I have been "quoted" saying all kinds of things I never said.
Freder--
Is English you first language? You don't see a difference between "regrettable but sometimes necessary" and "unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps"?
Those are two completely different thoughts.
You are just backpedaling because you got caught.
That he cites the genocide of Native Americans as an example is particularly telling.
The vast majority of American Indians were not warriors and did not even speak the same language as the warriors, yet they were collectively held responsible for their actions.
You don't see a difference between "regrettable but sometimes necessary" and "unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps"?
Unfortunately no. Perhaps you can explain it to me? Was the Sand Creek massacre or Wounded Knee unavoidable and provoked? Perhaps?
But you are not reasonable. You are doing something evil, and you show no remorse.
Now do Congress. Too much? How about Disney?
I doubt they're after power and self-importance. It's just young and stupid vandalism.
Calling me "hysterical" is a low — and arguably *sexist* — way to attempt to portray yourself as calm and reasonable
Althouse plays the cunt card.
@Fernandinande, yes, that's precisely what Freder linked to.
He posted it while I was looking for it.
Are you and I agreed that his paraphrase is not at all an accurate paraphrasing for Glenn's observation?
I dunno.
1 - Reynolds didn't say genocide was regrettable.
2 - I think the rest of what he wrote was describing "reality", not his opinion, and that the "all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want" expresses their desire for genocide (of the West), which is what they'll get, rather than dish out, unless we "pursue a vigorous military strategy now." So genocide is not what he wants, it's what he wants to prevent.
I'm done with this thread.
rhhardin, you're out of line.
History as it really was is pretty horrible; advocating a vigorous military (I would add cultural-religious-ideological) response to the provocations of backward cultists is a long way from advocacy of genocide.
I'm a bit surprised the Prof takes certain commenters seriously.
Narr
Cabin fever, maybe?
The French recognize this for what it is, “We have no enemies to the left” doesn’t apply because the French know fascism when they see it and wokism is fascism. Macron actually has an education, he has read a little bit of 20th century European history, he has read this story before.
Freder is a very silly person. In addition, I resent the fact that his username is associated with one of my favorite movies, Metropolis
If you are expecting Freder to stop playing stupid, you are going to lose, because he can pretend to be stupid for months and years at a time.
“I’m not stupid like people say! I’m smart!” - Fredo
Reynolds didn't say genocide was regrettable.
Actually, revisiting this, I think "regrettable but sometimes necessary" is not as bad as what he actually said. "[U]navoidable, and provoked, perhaps", lays the blame on the victims of genocide.
I'd imagine that historical imagination might help with understanding wiping out the indians.
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”
I don’t know how you read that any other way than a plea to prevent the mistakes of the past from happening again, which nobody, not even Prof Reynolds, can change.This is why we call you either stupid or dishonest.
BTW, from all indications, he is describing Biden’s policy, since on the first full day of his presidency, he sent a large convoy of troops into Syria.
Remember when the commanders ignored Trump’s order to leave Syria?
U.S. military forces have returned to eastern Syria weeks after President Trump ordered the complete withdrawal of American troops from the area. The move comes as the top Kurdish leader of a U.S.-backed militia accuses Turkey of “continuing its war” against the Kurds in Syria.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-military-returns-syria-oil-fields
By supporting Biden you are supporting continuing the policies that Reynolds decried in the passage you quote and mischarictarize.
But of course you have your moron persona to fall back on to pretend you are not just a dishonest partisan troll trying to score points based on characterizations of other people’s words.
Freder's link does not substantiate his charge. It shows the reverse of what Freder asserted. Reynolds wanted action now so that the risk of en extreme reaction, which might be genocidal as has happened before, will not arise. If I say you need to wash the would or you might get gangrene and lose the leg I am not hoping you lose the leg.
Freder is sub-Birkel.
“unavoidable and provoked” in no way applies to the genocide of American Indians, which he compared to the genocides by the Romans, which were anything but “unavoidable and provoke” as you well know Fredo.
Hardin
No, she isn’t. Hysterical is an EXPLICTLY sex loaded term. Check the etymology.
" lays the blame on the victims of genocide.”
He was referring to the all out war with Islam that bin Laden was attempting to provoke. You may recall that one of his provocations made the news back in the aughts.
Macron starting lurching to the right on issues like immigration, refugees, and Islamic terror since early 2018. He is terrified of another Calais Jungle and wants to neutralize any potential threat from Marine Le Pen and her National Rally party.
“Akin” does not mean “exactly like."
I have searched the Internet. I have found no instance of Fernandistein saying any of these:
1 genocide is regrettable
2 boiling puppies in oil is regrettable
3 raping kittens is regrettable
By his own standard ...
Nor for Freder actually.
"So in a post deriding woke culture, you are accusing me of not being woke? That's rich."
I have taken a feminist position for more than 50 years. This blog is a 17-year archive of staunch feminism. So you are flat-out wrong to think I have no foundation for saying it's "arguably sexist" to call me "hysterical." You're lucky I said "arguably." Calling a woman "hysterical" is like calling a black person "lazy." It's a dog-whistle that's been well known for a hundred years.
And to compare the grand tradition of feminism to the idiocy of present-day cancel culture and shallow wokeism is either stupid or dishonest.
"I called you hysterical because I believe you knew exactly the post I was referring to."
Good thing you included the weasel words "I believe" because you are wrong. I had no idea.
“ 1610s, "characteristic of hysteria," the nervous disease originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus; literally "of the womb," from Latin hystericus "of the womb," from Greek hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb," from PIE *udtero-, variant of *udero- "abdomen, womb, stomach" (see uterus).”
Althouse
Freder is lying to you. He has no basis at all for thinking you would know some old article. Not does your knowing it or not have any relevance to the word hysterical.
I don't see a good link to Derrida and Christine McDonald's Choreographies, about the grand tradition of feminism. I mean you can find a pdf with a little work.
The first five or so pages would be enlightening, on the difference between feminism and feminism.
So I shouldn't refer to Bill Cosby's old comic routines as being "hysterical" because some feminist would be triggered from hearing a dog whistle. Got it.
Just trying to keep up on the current rule set vis a vis feminist-approved language use. Because we know feminists value free speech.
I just got it! Freder is playing word games! So pace Reynold's column, it (Freder) must be an academic.
Macron starting lurching to the right on issues like immigration, refugees, and Islamic terror since early 2018.
“Lurching” is not a synonym for “moving.”
I wrote it yesterday or the day before- the difference in France is that their minorities are not our minorities. That it is the critical difference- the French and their culture are in a much deadlier situation with regards to wokism.
Yancey Ward: “ the French and their culture are in a much deadlier situation with regards to wokism.”
I wonder if that's actually true. I am not saying it isn’t. But (north) America is in a pretty deadly position re wokeness. Canada may break up, and I would not be surprised to see things even worse in America soon. Racial quotas are coming. Woke cities are falling apart and might be impossible to put back together. Bidenharris will I believe ignore court rulings they find uncongenial.
>>Ann Althouse said...
"Calling a woman "hysterical" is like calling a black person "lazy."<<
So a woman (generic woman - not you, in this case) should never be described as "hysterical" when she's being hysterical? That's nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate, and it is false not to, when it is warranted. Just as is referring to a particular lazy Black as "lazy" when it is warranted. Unless one's mind is ruled by the dictates of the ever-stupid political correctness. Some minds yet are not.
I don’t see an advocacy of genocide compared to a description of why it has happened in history. Someone may honestly not understand the nuance, but I wouldn’t consider that person intelligent.
This is just like cancelling someone for noting the history of the n-word as thus advocating the use of the word. This type of woke response to things seems like a devolution of thought. I guess this is why intent no longer matters. In my opinion, the shame is the woke that seeks to cancel rather than deal with history or the difference in discussing history vs advocacy.
So I get scolded for calling althouse hysterical. Rhhardin calls her something I would never call anyone, and it goes unnoted (except by Roughcoat).
Farmer observes: He is terrified of another Calais Jungle and wants to neutralize any potential threat from Marine Le Pen and her National Rally party.
Bingo!!!
I think people need to get this clear. The "Woke employees" at the NYT have ZERO power. I'm always struck at the reluctance of the Center-right to identify the powerful people who are responsible. Instead they always love to make vague generalizations. Sulzberger is responsible. The Editor is responsible. The "Woke employees" had ZERO power to fire anyone. Furthermore, a job at the NYT is sought after by almost journalist. Its the job they all want. Sulzberger could fire everyone of these "wokesters" and he's have 10 job applications for every opening.
Stop imagining he's doing this because someone "Forced him". What. A. Joke.
That's nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate, and it is false not to, when it is warranted.
I might nominally agree, but not by the Calvinball rules being used by Freder. If others are supposed to recall context from a 15 year old post (and by a third person), then it is fair game to cite context from previous discussions on this blog. But hey, it is Calvinball, so...
While we're at it, we should mention African tribes and their admirably humane treatment of other tribes. Oh, wait...
Freder
Learn to read before making claims. I objected to Hardin’s comment too. And to his defense of your sexism.
If Reynolds does think the "woke employees" got this man fired and go fire anyone who crosses their SJW sensibilities, then maybe he should stop treating them as a Joke and calling them "Childish" and "Confused". IF they really have this power, they are dangerous. And not "funny".
I regard wokism as I regard bad management hires:
The longer it goes on the shorter it will last.
Twitter, Facebook, and Google better hope they already have enough power around the world to make it too late to rein them in, because I am pretty sure the EU, with both Macron and Merkel on board, intends to do it.
It might not be true, Ken, but I am an optimist at heart.
Leland said...
>That's nonsense. It is perfectly legitimate, and it is false not to, when it is warranted.<
I might nominally agree, but not by the Calvinball rules being used by Freder.
There's no "but" about my comment, per yours. I made very clear that I was not referring to the Fred/Althouse dustup, but only to her feeble "dog whistle" sanctuary.
And I agree with rcocean- put the blame where the decisions are made. People without backbones are hard to support.
And, where was Bedbug Stephen's resignation letter? Probably unwritten, right?
So then I don’t agree.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I have taken a feminist position for more than 50 years. This blog is a 17-year archive of staunch feminism.
2/12/21, 10:36 AM
Shouting Thomas! This is YOUR day, wherever you are.
@rhardin - Althouse is Meade's smart wife. But for many of us, she's a smart girlfriend. Why fuck it up?
@TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed:
So I shouldn't refer to Bill Cosby's old comic routines as being "hysterical" because some feminist would be triggered from hearing a dog whistle. Got it.
Just trying to keep up on the current rule set vis a vis feminist-approved language use. Because we know feminists value free speech.
Or maybe Ann has a legitimate point that you're dismissing out of hand as just her being "triggered." You can agree or disagree with her point, but there was nothing "hysterical" about it. I'm reminded of this exchange between Ann Coulter and Piers Morgan:
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: You called me in the break a sexist, misogynist pig.
ANN COULTER: Yes.
MORGAN: Can you explain why?
COULTER: Yes.
MORGAN: What have I said that’s been remotely sexist.
COULTER: “Calm down.” Oh, it is the conservative female obligation to…
MORGAN: You were hyperventilating.
COULTER: ..I’m not hyperventilating. I’m disagreeing with you, which apparently is insulting your teeny, tiny, male ego. It is the most insulting, condescending, sexist thing to say to a female – generally conservative – who disagrees with you. No, it’s my obligation to back down and accept your point, and if I don’t, “You’re not being calm.”
At the end of the Napoleonic wars, 30% of the male population of France between the ages of 18 and 46 were either dead or disabled. Not quite genocide, but in that neighborhood....It's only fairly recently that Napoleon's grandiose adventures have been met with a critical eye in France and even today he's not held in such contempt as Petain. Petain was certainly on the wrong side in WWII, but his actions in WWI probably kept France from losing that war. Petain's body count was certainly less than Napoleon's......This cancel culture is a fickle thing. I guess Stalin is finally cancelled, but Mao's portrait hangs over the public squares in China.
The French truly have no grounds for objecting to "wokeness" given their own long history of intolerance of minorities, religious or ethnic or racial. Consider the origin of the term "defenestration" that was coined for throwing Les Huguenots from palace windows. Their history of the crusade against the Cathars of Albi in the name of The Church, let alone their complicity in the Shoah is hardly a position of moral high ground. This does not include their record of colonization of the Maghreb, Indo-China, and continued linguistic chauvinism (let alone the origin of THAT word).
It took Chirac (in 1993) to admit any role in the WWII deportation of Jews and Gypsies. To this day, Chirac's public statement outrages the Proper French. Although most Proper French claim to be laic without ANY trance of theological leanings, this means they know the Church that they do not attend.
In 2013, I conducted a Seder for Passover for secular Jews and Proper French. At the end of the evening, a Professor of the Sorbonne asked, "If you all converted to Christianity you would no longer have any problem!"
After eight years living and working in France, the French Intellectual is well-worn mythology.
Just checking. Is it OK to call the French Frogs? Or is that an F-word?
Macron starting lurching to the right on issues like immigration, refugees, and Islamic terror since early 2018. He is terrified of another Calais Jungle and wants to neutralize any potential threat from Marine Le Pen and her National Rally party.
I have a friend who splits her time between Paris and the US (or did until March) who says that Macron is as socialist as Hollande and that his “lurch to the right” is pure posturing. She claims Macron is worried about Sarkozy, not Le Pen. No idea if friend is right—I’m too busy worrying about the US to pay attention to France.
@Earnest Prole:
“Lurching” is not a synonym for “moving.”
Yeah, that was a pretty muddled sentence. But Macron did move pretty sharp to the right on immigration in early 2018 with the changes to France's asylum law, and his firmer line on asylum seekers and immigrants has caused a rift within his own party.
T J Ducklo might have coined the motto of the current administration: “I will destroy you.”
Is English you first language?
You can't fix stupid.
When the French - the French! - thinks you're insufferable assholes, you may want to reconsider your position, leftists.
Sarkozy is under lawfare fillon is in prison.
But Macron did move pretty sharp to the right on immigration in early 2018 with the changes to France's asylum law, and his firmer line on asylum seekers and immigrants has caused a rift within his own party.
Agreed. The structure of French politics seems to allow greater flexibility for change than the American model, at least right now. Time of course will tell.
Leonetti is the successor to sarkozy.
One of the things that strikes me in Reynold's essay is his comment that college campuses aren't happy places. Over the last 30+ years, I've been a college chaplain at over a half a dozen campuses in 4 state. I can attest to his assessment that students simply aren't happy. Students are depressed and anxious when they're not angry and bitter. What stands out most though is not how much students drink but how dang little they laugh.
Several years ago I listened to a mental health presentation at UW-Madison (where I currently serve as a chaplain). Not only are more and more students on psychiatric medication, they're graduating high school and coming to campus with prescriptions.
Bad as this is--and it breaks my heart--what was overwhelming was the off handed comment by the presenter that at UW divorce was an increasingly common outcome for married graduate students.
At what point I wondered did academia in this country stop serving the common good?
#stopwokemadness
Yup, the French have done some shitty things. Welcome to the adult world.
The issue as far as I'm concerned is exactly the one posed by Whatzisfrenchface-- there's only one side in the contest between those who have identity and interest tied to the greatest achievements of the last half-millenium, and those who don't.
Nor is there any particular reason for them to, whether they're the indifferent vast majority or the energetic and openly hostile minority.
Shallow Western soi-disant humanitarians often seem to me moved less by the plight of the victims of the failures of Islamic civilization than by the notion that they constitute a punishment, a scourge of God if you will and if they believe in God.
Narr
All Euros have done shitty things, and still can
@Jim at:
When the French - the French! - thinks you're insufferable assholes, you may want to reconsider your position, leftists.
The French strategy for dealing with their race problem is to hind behind an official "color-blind" policy. They have historically not collected racial or ethnic demographic data. Expressing racial defamation or insult is a criminal offense, and organizations that are deemed to be promoting racism can be banned. Each year they publish a "Report on the Fight Against Racism, Anti-Semitism, and Xenophobia." Here is the report from 2018.
"When even the French are calling the Americans morons..”
That’s been a favorite French pastime since we inherited the role of ‘frenemy’ from the English.
France and the US operate under the absurdity of civic nationalism. Rather than define the nation in terms of ethnicity or language or religion or culture broadly, it's defined in terms of political values, by accepting the constitutional order of the society. What Habermas called "constitutional patriotism." In this view, the nation is an open and pluralistic political community unbound from any particular ethno-cultural tradition. Yet, within France, what differentiates the native French from their various immigrant communities? Different values, traditions, and histories.
Narr, there's not a country on earth that has not done shitty things. It's part and parcel of the human experience.
Calling a woman "hysterical" is like calling a black person "lazy."
@Althouse, you do understand that Critical Race Theory explicitly says that black people are inherently lazy (and stupid, too), and white folks just have to suck it up and deal with it. I am resigned to seeing feminism evolve to the point where Critical Feminist Theory argues that women are inherently prone to hysteria and we guys just have to suck it up. It’s coming; you’re helping bring it (though I doubt you realize that).
@mockturtle:
Narr, there's not a country on earth that has not done shitty things. It's part and parcel of the human experience.
This is undoubtedly true, but so what? That brutality and inhumanity exists is not a defense of brutality and inhumanity. If we're so against terrorizing innocent, defenseless populations, we should stop doing it. Instead, we make every effort to justify and excuse it and to punish and criticize the people who point it out. America never commits horrible crimes; it only makes "mistakes." Victims of American crimes are considered no more significant than ants on an anthill. Ted Cruz says "carpet bomb Syria," and it's a huge applause line. Because, of course, the real problem in the Middle East is that we haven't been cruel and brutal enough. People don't even realize how sick that is.
Then again, people do have a tremendous capacity to convince themselves that even the most destructive acts are for the greater good of humanity. Before The Wonderful Wizard of Oz brought L. Frank Baum literary fame, he was editing a local newspaper in the Dakota territory. Upon the news of Sitting Bull's death, Baum editorialized: "With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are."
Freder lies about someone behind their back, Freder gets caught with his pants down, Freder whines about people being mean to him. Ahh, it's always nice to know there are some things that don't change in this crazy old world.
There was never a concerted political policy of the united states to exterminate the native americans. There was a policy to exterminate the buffalo.
Freder Frederson said...
You'd better put up the evidence very quickly Freder. That is character assassination. Link to specific proof of your assertion or take your comment down. Immediately.
I was paraphrasing and should not have put it in quotes. But you are just being hysterical. You know the post I am referring to because we had this conversation back in the day.
Here is a link. The original post on Instapundit has been conveniently put in the memory hole.
Bullshit. You are a liar.
You are a terrible person trying to destroy someone you disagree with with lies. Your goal is to get Reynolds fired, destroy his life, and drive him from the public square.
People like Freder are completely antithetical to a free society.
Freder is here in bad faith.
Democrats are all just operating in bad faith right now.
Ann Althouse said...
Do you think your paraphrase — "He after all did say that genocide (including that of Native Americans) is "regrettable, but sometimes necessary"" — was honest and fair. Would you advocate having the words of you, your family, and friends presented to the world using that kind of paraphrase? I'm asking quite apart from the totally false quotation marks which you only blandly "should not have put" in before you slap me as "hysterical." I'm guessing most people reading this are not siding with you. In fact, probably no one is siding with you. Calling me "hysterical" is a low — and arguably *sexist* — way to attempt to portray yourself as calm and reasonable. But you are not reasonable. You are doing something evil, and you show no remorse.
Are you finally going to join the fight against evil?
Farmer rightly observes: Then again, people do have a tremendous capacity to convince themselves that even the most destructive acts are for the greater good of humanity.
And that's the WORST excuse. As we all know, Hitler and his crew believed they were improving the human race for the greater good of humanity. That killing the deformed and infirm was acceptable for the goal of perfection of the race. And, of course, eliminating races and nationalities deemed unfit for the future Übermensch society.
Dehumanization of the enemy occurs even now. I not only don't defend it, I find it utterly abhorrent. My point, though, is that a civil and humane society is never permanent because the savagery beneath the surface will erupt in the blink of an eye. There is no such thing, really, as social evolution toward civility. There are only pauses in between periods of barbarian violence. Dropping a 9700 lb bomb on a crowded city is no more humane than disemboweling someone with a spear or a halberd.
I agree with mock@625 but didn't need her lesson earlier. When I said that the Euros have done shitty things I wasn't singling them out. As if.
And yes, civilization is a very thin and iffy thing.
Narr
All the more reason for some distance from the zone of crisis
Narr, it wasn't a lesson. Just extrapolating on your observation.
mock, gotcha. Thanks. Sometimes intent is hard to read.
Narr
And to convey
OK, I was hoping for a cafe' but since there isn't one, here's the case for Napoleon by his admiring but not sycophantic English biographer Andrew Roberts--leaving aside the tally of life and limb which I'll try to circle back to:
The ideas that underpin our modern world--meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances and so on--were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by N[]. To them he added rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman Empire. At the same time he dispensed with [various revolutionary absurdities]. . . .
If he was such an inveterate warmonger, how was it that twice as many wars were declared on him than he had declared on others?
END QUOTE
Narr
I shall return
@mockturtle:
My point, though, is that a civil and humane society is never permanent because the savagery beneath the surface will erupt in the blink of an eye. There is no such thing, really, as social evolution toward civility. There are only pauses in between periods of barbarian violence.
I do believe there has been something akin to moral progress. The treatment of children, the treatment of the disabled, and the treatment of non-human animals are a few that come to mind. I reject the Hobbesian view of man's existence in nature as one of savagery. A key component of human society is not competition but cooperation. In times of crisis, people are much more likely to become more prosocial than antisocial.
The basic division in humanity is not between "I" and "You" but "Us" and "Them." Because this required intimate familiarity between members, early human band societies usually consisted of only a few dozen people. However, with the advent of settled living, people were able to cooperate flexibly in very large numbers. Proto-cities in southeastern Europe and southern Turkey were already housing thousands of people before the advent of the bronze age. By the time civilization arises in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, cities were housing tens of thousands of people. The city of Rome had a million inhabitants at the time of Christ's birth.
Because humans can use symbolic communication, we can be members of any number of conceptual families: nations, religious communities, language groups, fandoms, alma matters, hobbies.
Hmm...I think I went a little far afield.
I think intergroup violence is and always will be a given in human societies. (One thing that I'll only mention here is that our modern obsession with Race and Racism serves really well to obscure the more fundamental truth that humans have never NEEDED race and racism to mistreat one another. On this the historical record is clear enough.)
As to changes in societies that might be considered moral progress, I'm not sure they're either completely mythical or necessarily all recent. IIRC well before Christianity took the helm in Rome, the trends in law and philosophy had been away from the worst abuses of slavery--fewer sentenced, punishments milder, etc.-- and even Islam had features that were considered improvements by many in the so-quickly-conquered urban centers and frontier regions of ancient but increasingly corrupt imperiums.
On Roman city population, the debate isn't over. I think 1mill at 1CE is probably too high.
Narr
But back to more recent history . . .
@Narr:
If he was such an inveterate warmonger, how was it that twice as many wars were declared on him than he had declared on others?
The Napoleonic Wars were a terrible harbinger for what was to come over the next century: total war. As the people of France came to see themselves less as subjects and more as citizens, Napoleon found himself with a nation in arms at his disposal. "Any Frenchman is a soldier and owes himself to the defense of the nation." In this sense, France was not a nation-state but a state-nation. Like the USA, the state preceded the nation. And like France, the American nation was forged in war.
OK, back to the grisly butcher's bill of the Napoleonic Wars, in response to William's statistical claim this afternoon, TTET 35ish% of French males of military were age were
dead or disabled by 1815. I can't find anything authoritative online to support that (and none of my books are so definite), and some of what I see is just balderdash.
Leave aside that the great majority of even military dead back then died of disease in camp or on campaign, that most non-specialist sites have trouble distinguishing between dead and casualties, and the conflation of Revolutionary and Imperial Wars, one site gives Prussian losses as 138k and British as 338k(!), which is absurd on its face.
Civilian historical stats and numbers are even squishier than the military ones, and its late, so I'll leave it there.
Narr
Icy cold here
@Narr:
(One thing that I'll only mention here is that our modern obsession with Race and Racism serves really well to obscure the more fundamental truth that humans have never NEEDED race and racism to mistreat one another. On this the historical record is clear enough.)
Undoubtedly true. What makes race such a pernicious fault line is that it is communicated biologically. You can adopt a language and a religion and cultural habits, but you can't adopt a race.
I know several Korean-American adoptees raised in America by white families since infancy who are now living in Seoul. They simply prefer being around people who look like them. When racial minorities say they want more "diversity," what they really mean is they want more people who look like them. If you've never been a minority in a salient way, it can be a difficult mindset to grasp.
Radio Derb today, on why the impeachers are running the impeachment
"Trump is a political outsider — not one of them — yet somehow he defeated Mrs Clinton in 2016. That's enough all by itself to generate hurricane level of spite among elite females … of both sexes. Do I need to remind you about the etymology of the word "hysteria"? No, of course I don't."
(Did I mention grab them by the pussy as part of the female calculation?)
This obsession on the part of the right and left of tying personal guilt to responsibility for injustices is what's stifling. Enjoy justifying or dismissing your sense of personal responsibility over this stuff all you want. The point is that without accountability there is no integrity. The proof in that pudding is how horribly France has done at keeping its Muslim immigrants from participating in terrorist acts. In the US we don't have that problem; instead we have a white nationalist front that's been allowed to run amok and ruin our greatness for centuries or more. Those who are ok with that or uncomfortable confronting it should be ok with facing prosecution for the many terrorist acts it's caused.
Farmer reports: I know several Korean-American adoptees raised in America by white families since infancy who are now living in Seoul. They simply prefer being around people who look like them.
Maybe so but I know a LOT more Asians who have no desire to move back to their home countries. But, then, I grew up in an area where there are a lot of Asian residents, not some white enclave and am not convinced that we all want to live only around people who 'look like' us.
"They have historically not collected racial or ethnic demographic data. Expressing racial defamation or insult is a criminal offense, and organizations that are deemed to be promoting racism can be banned."
Yes. This is true. But in application, it is simply another tool of social control used by the Proper French against uppity Semites (i.e., Arabs and Jews).
As for the "nation-state," it is largely a myth of the Ile de Paris, which rules from top down in the manner of the monarchy (with an elected King every five years). France was constructed over a thousand years slowly destroying smaller states with their own languages and customs. For the Proper French, there remains considerable local "racial identity" that are tied to these absorbed sub-states. These groups, however, are united by their growing resistance to outsiders be they Americans, North Africans, or emigres from sub-Saharan nationalities.
The Proper French love to point their fingers at the US exterminations of the aboriginal peoples OR cite the eugenic laws of the Democratic South in the 1920's. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge their own record of racism, pure and simple, especially their very long historical record against those who do not kneel to the Catholic Church or French Culture (admittedly the latter is autocorrelated with the former). Their colonial rule was horrific and cruel as attested by many in Morocco where university students are now demanding the language of instruction in higher education be shifted from French to American English.
The American experiment is flawed and in need of repair, to be sure. Taking instruction from aristocratic Proper French intellectuals is not the best direction as we move forward with our next iteration.
That is curious, because just a few years ago in the anniversary of the end of WWI, Macron was very critical of nationalism:
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. In saying 'Our interests first, whatever happens to the others,' you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: Its moral values."
You can read that as a challenge to Trump and also to the nationalist forces that threatened German-French hegemony in the EU. Now, it seems that Macron's own interests are threatened and he is embracing nationalism
Yes, I understand that he could call it "patriotism" and could still oppose "nationalism," but "nationalism" in his earlier speech was something of straw man. The degree to which those he opposed favored an isolationist or predatory nationalism was greatly exaggerated by Macron. In their eyes, they were supporting the values that made their countries great and also defending the interests of their nations. Macron is always looking out for his own interests and the interests of his nation's elites whether he sees them threatened by nationalists or the identity politics of minority groups.
France has had a complicated relationship with Catholicism for over 200 years. Macron and other members of the French elites have also had an ambivalent relationship with Catholicism. However things were before the Revolution and have been at times since, the country has also had a strong secularist tradition hostile to Roman Catholicism. Hollande was an agnostic, Jospin a "Protestant atheist" (and stepfather to Derrida's son). Macron sees some usefulness in religion, and in patriotism, but he wants to keep both under strict control.
Lurker21@508 makes some excellent points, but in reality France has had "a complicated relationship with Catholicism" for well well over 200 years! Some of the most bitter religious wars in Europe prior to the 30 Years War (The Big One; Got the Bad Conduct Medal) were the ones between the Huguenot (Calvinist Prots) and the RC majority--that's 400 years ago and more.
On "Macron sees some usefulness in religion, and in patriotism, but he wants to keep both under strict control" I'd say, first, the whole secularizing trend of the 18th C culminating in the French Rev was a response to the barbaric and blood-curdling religious wars that depopulated and worse-than-decimated entire regions in the centuries before, and to the massive and blatant corruption of the Ancien Regime, in which the Church was one of the most greedy and perverted institutions, in bed in all possible ways with the worst elements of a degenerate aristocracy.
And second, the patriotism/nationalism distinction is pretty ancient itself; Samuel Johnson's famous aphorism that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" was in his context a criticism of what we would call Nationalism. (That's one place where Heinlein got a literary-historical reference wrong, IIRC, in his criticism of the statement.)
So controlling religious and patriotic-nationalistic passions is job one for a lot of Euro elites, whether they do a good job or not.
Narr
It shows at least some historical consciousness
There’s a management matrix about that has a segment about dumb people who think they are smart.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा