From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 19:13:22 MST
In a message dated 22/03/03 01:13:10 GMT Standard Time, mlorrey@yahoo.com
writes:
> --- ABlainey@aol.com wrote:
> > I really don't agree with these actions against the french, or
> > weasels as some U. S papers are allegedly calling them. I think it
> > is borderline racist
>
> For the record, I am 1/12th French ancestry. So call me a self-hating
> miscegenated Frenchman, quadruply removed, if you want to. I certainly
> don't generally call attention to it. Calling a boycott by one
> predominantly white nation against another predominantly white nation
> "racist" is rather seriously grasping at straws.
>
I wouldn't call you a self hating 'miscegenated Frenchman' and don't think
that ancestry or even nationality really have a major implication in peoples
current views. If you think about it, The Normans conquered England hundreds
of years ago. So a large percentile of the UK population and many Americans
have French ancestry without realising it.
As for racist, I do agree that the word was improperly used, as I said in an
earlier post criticising its use. To reiterate, Nationalist or tribalist may
have been better words, but they didn't convey the sentiment I intended.
> > and goes against freedom of speech and democracy. Punishing a nation
> > for the political views of its leaders, while damaging your own
> > economy is pretty dumb
>
> If a nation is democratic, and lives by a majoritarian tyranny system
> of government (as France is), it's leaders are acting EXACTLY as their
> constituents want them to.
>
Not necessarily, As a democratic country the leaders are only elected by a
majority. Their actions during office are by and large down to their own
decisions. This is also the case in the US and the UK, is it not? The only
exceptions being when a referendum vote is cast on a given subject by the
populus. There was no referendum in the UK regarding actions in Iraq. In the
majority of polls taken on the subject a high of 80% against war shows that
the action of the government was against the wishes of their constituents.
> On a similar note, I hear lots of europeans and others claim they love
> Americans but hate our government's policy. Turns out that 71%
> currently support Bush's policy and 78% think the UN is a failure.
No argument on your first point. I assume these are figures of American
views? From my vantage point the figures here are very different. I will add
that my personal view on the UN. I cannot see how it can be viewed as 'a
Failure' simply because it didn't allow the US and UK to act as they pleased
or simply disagreed with them. The UN is after all a democratic group that
collectively make decisions based on each member states own wants and needs.
I will say that the UN does appear to be ineffective in events where time is
of the essence. This seems mainly due to the ungainly size and subsequent
slowness of the beast. hmmmm
> ur
> government's policy is our own. We own it. Get it?
>
And France's policy is its own. So why should you act against them for
expressing their views? If it is right and just to boycott French goods and
services simply because they didn't agree with our actions. Then we are
saying 'if you don't vote the way we want you to, we will punish you' or even
simpler 'do as I say or else'?
Democracy and freedom of speech, this is not.
> In contrast, it is easy to hold such a dichotimous view with regards to
> Iraq and its people.
>
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 19:23:10 MST