It was not all that long ago that Americans were lashing out at France and anything French. Back in 2002 and 2003, during the lead-up to the ill-advised American invasion of Iraq, France stood opposed to the invasion, as did most of the rest of the world. That included Germany, the biggest country of the European Union. It also included Russia and China. And the vast majority of the Middle East. Even the majority of people of our closest ally during that time, Great Britain, stood opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, almost the entire rest of the world felt that it was a bad idea, and stood opposed to it.
Somehow, though, it seemed like Americans took exception to France being opposed to the invasion. There always seems to be particular anger towards France whenever it stands opposed to something that the United States is doing. From De Gaulle withdrawing from NATO in the 1960's, to France refusing to allow American jets to fly over French airspace en route to boming Libya in the 1980's, to France being one of many, many countries the world over opposed to an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq, the fact that France ever stands opposed to the United States really rubs Americans the wrong way.
If asked, many Americans - especially but not exclusively those who identify as conservatives - will point to World War II. They will say that the French surrendered too quickly and readily to Hitler's Germany, which is in fact a fair point. The thing is, the way that they do it, and how relentlessly they do it, becomes a problem itself. They act like this all happened a few weeks, or at most, a few years ago, as opposed to events which happened long before most people these days were ever born. Indeed, before most of our parents were born, even. They may recognize that things which were considered normal here in the United States - like legal racial segregation, as just one example - were obviously long ago, and so largely irrelevant. But France's defeat to Germany in the spring of 1940? That might as well have happened last spring, as opposed to a spring which, as I write this, occurred almost 85 years ago.
So while Americans recognize that their country has changed since then, and in many obvious and easy to see ways, it often feels like they feel that absolutely nothing has changed in France or with the French during that time. And they still feel that the French are heavily in their debt, that they owe Americans something. So with this thinking, how dare the French have their own opinions about things? How dare they criticize the United States....like, ever!
It sometimes seems like Americans are, collectively, quite oblivious of the rest of the world outside of these sacred American borders of ours. Too often, we rely on stereotypes, which seems to be an effort at either excusing that ignorance, or perhaps even insisting that these stereotypes are true and pretending that a very real ignorance does not exist. In fact, this reliance on stereotypes becomes the strongest defense that this ignorance has, because people who use it believe that they "know" certain truths, and that anyone who does not recognize it, much less actively argues against them, is just being naive or political correct or today, of course, "woke." So with this thinking, we have been conditioned to view the Russians as really bad guys, as evil. We used to openly make fun of the Chinese or Japanese in similarly insulting ways, often referring to them as having buck teeth. Arabs are often seen as brutes and terrorists. Germans often are portrayed as brilliantly evil, or perhaps outright Nazis. And the French, of course, have a number of half-baked stereotypes. No one stereotype defines the French in this ignorant mindset. Instead, a bunch of stereotypes will do. So the French as "cowards" and "surrender monkeys." They are also "arrogant" and "snooty" and pretend to a level a sophistication so that they can look down their long noses at Americans. The French also are decadent, and many American rednecks will claim that French men are gay while also, paradoxically, insinuating that they are womanizers who cannot be trusted.
Through it all, Americans who hold these kinds of views consistently feel that the French in particular owe us Americans something. After all, we liberated France from Germany - twice, right? Never mind that France provided crucial assistance as the first country ever to become friends with the United States and to help it gain it's independence to begin with. And never mind that France and the United States have helped each other many times over the course of a long friendship, from the Louisiana Purchase to France donating the Statue of Liberty, one of the most iconic and beloved patriotic symbols of the United States. And yes, there was the assistance which the United States provided to France (and dozens of other countries) in the two world wars.
Increasingly, Americans seem to feel like the rest of the world owes us. Look at who we just elected to the White House. Trump always claims that Europe needs to pull it's own weight, particularly in defense. He also claims that the United States is being ripped off by many other countries, especially China, Canada, and Mexico. Clearly, he also feels that the United States is entitled to take over some places, even if that means a hostile takeover by the military, as he seems to be suggesting about Greenland and the Panama Canal, and by insisting that Canada should become the 51st state. Apparently, these sentiments are being encouraged by more and more Americans, for that matter. They do not view such actions and behavior as embarrassing or hopelessly outdated, a product of the thinking of the 1800's colonial powers. Indeed, many Americans seem to like the idea that we might take over these lands, even though that will not lower grocery prices any.
Let's face it: Americans seem to believe that the rest of the world should bow down to Americans, and give us what we seem to want, at least according to our elections. We have created a largely false narrative of world history that centers around us, and our heroic, liberating role. Europe should be eternally grateful to us for liberating us from Nazi Germany. Otherwise, they would all be speaking German. Except that this is a lie, and easily exposed when you look at any accurate historical atlas. The Nazi German military machine looked unbeatable until it lost at Stalingrad to the Red Army. After that, defeat was inevitable. We went into Europe only after the Soviets began quickly advancing to the borders of the Reich, and Truman was quoted as wanting to hold off on opening up a western front in the war so that the Russians and Germans could do as much damage to each other as possible. D-Day came after the Soviets had urged us to open up a second front for years. But Americans like to forget (and thus, undermine) the Soviet/Russian role in defeating the Nazis in World War II.
After World War II, of course, came the Cold War. But we Americans want credit to go to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War, and we relentlessly (and shamelessly) beat our chests and patted our backs for this triumph, even though no less of an expert as Mikhail Gorbachev wanred against this mindset, and even though we left Afghanistan in rubble after providing military assistance to defeat the Soviets, then allowed that country to rot in turmoil - a turmoil which the Taliban eventually ended by bringing harsh order, and they of course harbored terrorists (a situation which we Americans helped to create). When Bill Clinton goes back on the promise not to expand NATO, which was made by his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, we feel entitled to this expansion of our military and economic interests in central and eastern Europe, even if it makes Russians feel less secure and outright threatened. When George W. Bush aggressively advocates a war in Iraq and seems to push for war with Iran, we feel entitled to do it even against the wishes of the rest of the world. Bush even mocked the rest of the world, saying that the United States did not need a "permission slip" from the United Nations to invade Iraq. When Barack Obama is caught illegally spying on allied countries (most famously Germany) as well as launching drone attacks killing people illegally, we feel entitled to it. No major criticisms of Obama came of it, from either the left or the right. Then, of course, comes the basically imperialistic, dictatorial presidency of the Trump White House. Europe owes us money, or else. Canada and Mexico and China had better stop cheating us, or else. Backwards "shithole nations" had better cut down on illegal immigration to the United States, or else. Now, the Panama Canal and Greenland and Canada had better do our bidding, or else....we will absorb them into our American empire.
These days, it feels like we are the aggressors. And nobody had better criticize us...or else.
So related to this sentiment, it feels to me, is this Op-Ed piece from the increasingly conservative, pro-Trump Wall Street Journal feels like a pre-emptive strike of sorts against France. A reminder, albeit a modern one not focusing so exclusively on supposed World War II debts, that France should be grateful to us Americans. It insinuates that no less of an iconic treasure than Notre-Dame is an "American Treasure in Paris."
In other words, France, you had better be grateful for Americans and their generosity....or else?
Well, there is no direct threat that I could see in this article. Yet the title and timing of this article, which is an Op/Ed piece from a newspaper that is now largely regarded as conservative and pro-Trump, feels a bit suspicious to me. It smacks of Americentrism. That same old "you better be thankful for us and all we do" kind of mentality. Given that the incoming president has declared his hope that Canada will join the United States, and refusing to rule out military intervention to take over the Panama Canal and Greenland, it feels like a pre-emptive attack on France and the French in anticipation of criticisms to come. In other words, Trump has actively and openly and provocatively tried to make enemies of former friends, particularly in western Europe and with Canada and Mexico. Now, this article feels like a justification of sorts, a reminder that the rest of the world ought to remember to be thankful for everything that Americans and the United States is and has done. And here's the thing: I don't think it's even meant for a French audience, even though it claims that Notre-Dame is an "American Treasure" in the French capital. No, this article feels like it had Americans - and particularly those who identify as conservatives, perhaps even Trump supporters to be even more specific - in mind. To rally support here at home in order to deflect the inevitable criticisms to come for the next four years. At least the next for years.
It basically is saying that there are more Americans who helped restore Notre-Dame than any other nationality. And it seems to hint that the French - and perhaps indeed the rest of the world - should be thankful to Americans for this. It's so similar to the old and tired arguments that Americans have long made about how the rest of the world really should appreciate us more. That in fact, they owe us, that they are largely in our debt. It's the same argument that Americans have used before, particularly in regards to France. Perhaps some of them finally realized that events that occurred now well over eight decades ago might not be as immediately felt, so an updated proof that they are in debt to us, on some level of other, was required. In short, it's old wine in new bottles.
Again, anyone with a measure of objectivity cannot help but wonder about the timing of this Op/Ed piece. Notre-Dame was in the latter stages of being reconstructed and, at the time when this article was completed, was getting set to re-open. It also happened to have come a little over a month after Donald Trump won another term in the White House, and a little over one month form when he officially takes the oath again. The author knows perfectly well that Trump, the elected face and voice of the country for the next four years (at least) is not very popular in the rest of the world. So needing a new rationale to silence foreign critics, it felt like he came up with this.
But to call Notre-Dame, of all things, an "American Treasure in Paris?" Does that not seem a bit over the top?
Let's be clear: the Americans who provided this assistance deserve thanks. But they were not alone. Also, it is not really accurate to suggest that this was not a national goal for the United States, like defeating Germany was during World War I and World War II was or going to the moon. These were the actions of certain wealthy individuals, which the author is conveniently passing off with a wave of the magic wand of manipulative writing as an American venture and then presumes to be one more reason for which France and the French to feel enormously thankful towards the United States. Thus, he feels entitled to suggest - apparently with a straight face - that Notre-Dame is an "American" masterpiece. Is Varadarajan so oblivious of history as to fail to realize that Notre-Dame became an icon long, long, long before the United States even existed as a country (with the help of France), and thus referring to it as an "American Treasure in Paris" is not only inaccurate, but downright patronizing and presumptuous?
It's strange that Americans who tend to think like this somehow seem not to grasp how tiresome this narrow mode of thinking is to the world. If you are part of the over 95% of the world's population that comes from a country outside of the United Stares, don't you think it would grow a bit tiresome to hear people from one particular country constantly patting themselves on the back, claiming to be number one, suggesting that they are the greatest country in the world, God's country, the "shining city on the hill?" Would Americans not grow tired of it if they kept hearing similar things from another country? Does it ever occur to them that the world existed before the United States came into being, and that much of what happens in the world does not involve the United States, including some good things? In other words, does it never occur to them that the rest of the world is not a solar system revolving around the "sun" which they feel the United States to be?
Should we remind Tunku Varadarajan, the author of this piece, that Notre-Dame Cathedral predates the independence of the United States by over 600 years? That in fact, Notre-Dame Cathedral predates even Columbus "discovering" America by well over 300 years? Whether certain parts of the structural integrity of Notre-Dame had been allowed to deteriorate even before the fire, that still does not mean that Americans were responsible for the architectural wonder and historical and cultural significance that this beloved cathedral has represented over the man centuries in which it has existed. That some wealthy Americans helped, as members of the wider world community (which Varadarajan does a good job of forgetting to mention nearly as prominently) is beyond a doubt. That France now owes Americans a debt, and therefore probably should shut their critical mouths in the long four years (at least) to come, however, is quite a bit more doubtful. It seems a little too convenient that Varadarajan would word his article in this particularly Americentric (and I would argue, misleading) way.
What people like Varadarajan always seem to forget to mention, quite conveniently at that, is that things like this work both ways. France showed it's support of the United States during modern American disasters, including September 11th, and during the conflict in Afghanistan. Much like many countries provided assistance to help rebuild Notre-Dame, France was one of many countries which also provided assistance to Americans during Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. Reading Varadarajan's piece, you might never know this, and get angry at the French for simply taking assistance while never providing any of their own. Curious also, the absence of French claims that Americans "owe" France for this assistance, or is in debt to them for it.
Yes, Americans and the French have had a long, and frankly complicated, relationship between one another. Some people call it "frenemies," although even that lacks nuance. From France assisting the United States with crucial help to achieve independence, to Lafayette often being considered an American patriot, to Americans like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine getting involved in French Revolutionary politics, to Alexis de Tocqueville and his writings on the young United States (which are not as outdated as one might suppose, despite having been written the better part of two centuries ago), to France donating the Statue of Liberty, to the United States providing crucial military aid to France in both world wars, to the American writers and artists who lived in and influenced Paris during the interwar years, to the tensions between the two largely allied countries during first the Cold War, and now the post-Cold War years, and to many other individuals, events, and things which I surely am forgetting to mention at the moment, there are definitely connections between the two countries which are worth exploring. But it should not be manipulated to exclusively favor one country over the other, or to imply that one country is absolutely more indebted to the other for assistance of friendship.
What they try to pass off as bitterness at a lack of gratitude for their sacrifices actually seems to be, upon closer examination, a narcissistic need to always be at the center, to always have the world's attention, and to be regarded and acknowledged as, undeniably, the greatest. And the one we just elected - for a second time - to be the face and the voice of the nation is a mirror image of this unsavory character trait that too many Americans share. Demanding respect, demanding more concessions to meet our interest Always demanding, always playing victim to an evil and lesser world. A new civilizing mission, if you will, with hardly an effort to bother to put on airs of advancing a higher or more noble civilization.
So what I would counter is that far from being an "American treasure in Paris," as Varadarajan claims, Notre-Dame is, in fact, a world treasure. That is why, despite it being located in the heart of the capital of France, the whole world seemed to find ways to help out and provide valued assistance to get Notre-Dame back on it's feet, so to speak, and open it's doors to the public once again. Many narrow-minded people will often claim that such landmarks are the treasures of a certain country (Notre-Dame for France, Stonehenge for Britain, the Great Wall for China, the Great Pyramids for Egypt), and so on. But I remember my father used to say that these kinds of wonders of the world actually belong to everyone who bothers to visit them. When he said that, I was still just a kid, for the most part. But it changed my thinking about such places, and made me see such world treasures (like Notre-Dame of Paris) in a new light.
These places have their history, and yes, they may be within the borders of one particular country. But make no mistake: they are treasures which rightly belong to all the world, on some level, and we all lose if such treasures are somehow lost. Through this lens, we should not look at Notre-Dame and view it exclusively as French, and we most certainly should not look at it and think of it as an "American treasure in Paris." To insist on doing so actually diminishes both the historical landmark itself, as well as the people and nation attempting to horde the credit for it.
Below are the links to the articles which I used in writing this particular blog entry, including the main one which got me on this topic, the Wall Stret Op/Ed piece by Tunku Varadarajan on top:
Notre-Dame Cathedral, an American Treasure in Paris The U.S. raised some $62 million to help reconstruct the great Gothic church. by Tunku Varadarajan Dec. 12, 2024:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/notre-dame-an-american-treasure-in-paris-restoration-philanthropy-donations-cathedral-778f5a9d?mod=e2fb&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=120207446090830106&utm_content=120215297363600106&utm_term=120208317271400106&utm_campaign=120207446090830106&fbclid=IwY2xjawHtKGVleHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQBqxctEEkzugEds8LTFlpD4bVv8eId9uFIzfQ4cjmAvsdj0DA-50w0Il1hpIHQB_tO-1EW_aem_jPeyk7Gihj2e2Q6TQxYKBg
International response to Hurricane Katrina
International response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia
France offers help to US after Hurricane Sandy France offered to help the storm-struck US on Tuesday after Hurricane Sandy devastated much of the American east coast, killing over 30 people and causing billions of dollars-worth of damage. Issued on: 31/10/2012
France offers help to US after Hurricane Sandy
https://www.rfi.fr/en/americas/20121031-france-offers-help-us-after-hurricane-sandy
No comments:
Post a Comment