There is nothing quite as rich as when a French correspondent, draped in the gauziest notions of the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen,* swans into a thread to game points by reprehending America for its slave past.

Slavery, of course, was a hateful business, but it was abolished once -- and forever -- in the United States on December 18, 1865 with 359,528† American lives as guaranty.

This does not satisfy our Frenchie (nor much of the American Left), who sniffs that France had abolished slavery years before. For the franchouille it's all about being first.

Well, yes, the French National Convention abolished black slavery on February 4, 1794 (16 Pluviôse Year II). This proved to be an inconvenience, so Napoléon reinstated slavery by decree on May 20, 1802.

The Second Republic got around to re-abolishing black slavery by decree on April 27, 1848, invoking those dinner-speech chestnuts, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

Many American states had enacted emancipation measures or outright abolition or prohibition before France's first try: Vermont (1777); Pennsylvania and Massachusetts (1780); Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire (1784); The Northwest Ordinance, the eventual states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota (July 13, 1787).

And several American states beat France's second try, too: New York (1799); New Jersey (February 15, 1804); Maine (1820); Iowa (1846). As did Great Britain (1838).

It might be pointed out that up until their internecine revolution, the majority of French lived as slaves styled as subjects of the crown. And though le Code Noir passed with the revolution (though French slavery did not), France maintained a colonial system‡ that kept whole nations disenfranchised up until the last half of the twentieth century. And have a peek here for the petty pace of civil liberties granted French women. (Hat Tip: Valerie)

Let me be clear about the matter before us. It is NOT condemning the 18th and 19th centuries for not being the 21st century. No, the question is just how defective is the French acquaintance with their own defective past that Frenchies presume to game points on slavery?

Now, let us all adjourn to the kerosene shed for a smoke.

* A document that did not wholly apply to Jews, women, or blacks.
† 524,509 when including Confederate fatalities of 164,981.
‡ This system has been repeatedly downgraded, from Empire to Union to Community to the soft colonialism of today's Francophony.

Damian :

Let me ask you a question : where did you find out that we started a challenge against the US ??

If you enjoy seeing the french doing something wrong, it's your own business, nevetheless, I don't like seeing US or France doing things like that. I you want to show that you're smarter than frenchies : show how you don't care about those who criticize the US of A.

Stephane,
Come on. We have been hearing on this site from the Frenchies how Americans are all morons and the French and Europeans are so much smarter than us, and the best you can do is say DG isn't playing fair? Demolish his argument.

You can even use name calling which you guys seem to like so much. But if you call his mother a whore you have two obligations, 1: prove she's a whore, and 2:Prove that it's relevant to the argument. Actually, it would be better if you tackled the second one first.

Also, I think the point that DG is trying a bit too subtly, IMHO, to make, is that the constant French refrain of "Everybody does it" and "You Americans are worse" and "You are naiive if you don't believe that your own govt is as corrupt as we are" and the rest are not only beside the point, but factually wrong to boot.

You live in a democracy. You could do better if you stopped putting up with it. This has little to do with France, and everything to do with the current attitudes and beliefs of Frenchman.

The real insult to the French should be "Cheese stealing surrender monkeys".

that's so true! US of da A abolish slavery waaayyy before France.....i have a question for you what's jim crow laws? not sure about it, can you explain them to me Damien? explain them to everyone here at pave France.

Adam Ricardo: a mix between Adam Smith(well-known) and David Ricardo, way more extremis than Smith

are you happy Damien! it's seems you're the only one who have a problem with it.

Here DGB

I'll take care of Ricardo/Adam/David/Smith.

Tampa Bay Lightning 4 , Montreal Canadiens 0 (zero) (zip) (nada) (zilch) (goosed)

You know they don't even have ice in Tampa. LOL

In other silly games that don't mean squat to Americans, but are life and death passion plays for Canuuks, the scores are as follows;

Detroit Redwings 5 , Calgary Flames 2
Philadelphia Flyers 3 , Toronto Maple Leafs 1
San Jose Sharks 4 , Moose Lick Avalanche 1

(for the purposes of symmetry the Colorado team has been demoted to an honorary Canadian team)

tip of the hat trick to you

I found out that today - April 25th, is a holiday in Australia honoring their armed services.
ANZAC day

John Howard paid a suprise visit to the Aussies on duty in Baghdad. I have been told that ANZAC day means much to our friends down under.

This got me thinking. What sort of national holiday would be appropriate for Mr. Chirac to visit the troops in Haiti, Congo, Ivorie Coast, Guyana, Afganistan, or any of the other little countries they regularly strong arm? So I googled state holidays France and came up with this from Fodor's French to English language books company. French Holidays
I highlighted the parts that make me chuckle. This was written in August of 2000, so don't accuse it of being colored by French perfidy regarding Iraq.

The French enjoy 11 national jours feriés (holidays) annually. During the month of May, there is a holiday nearly every week, so be prepared for stores, banks and museums to shut their doors for days at a time. It is a good idea to call museums, restaurants and hotels in advance to make sure they will be open.

Trains and roads near major cities tend to get busy around the national holidays. Not coincidentally, this also happens to be the time when service unions (such as transporters, railroad workers, etc.) like to go on strike — something of a tradition, in fact. Travelers would do well to check ahead, particularly when planning a trip for the last week of June or first week of July!

Under the law, every French citizen is entitled to 5 weeks of vacation. Most of the natives take their summer vacations in July or August, and many major businesses are then closed. All of France takes to the roads, railroads, boats, and airways. Consequently, traveling in France during August is generally not recommended for foreigners.

Public Holidays
1 January New Year's Day (Jour de l'an)
1 May Labor Day (Fête du premier mai)
8 May WWII Victory Day (Fête de la Victoire 1945; Fête du huitième mai)
14 July Bastille Day (Fête nationale)
15 August Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Assomption)
1 November All Saints Day (La Toussaint)
11 November Armistice Day (Jour d'armistice)
25 December Christmas Day (Noël)
26 December 2nd Day of Christmas (in Alsace Lorraine-only)

Moveable Feasts
Religion: Christian (Western)
Feast 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Good Friday* 29 March 18 April 9 April 25 March 14 April 6 April
Easter (Pâques) 31 March 20 April 11 April 27 March 16 April 8 April
Easter Monday 1 April 21 April 12 April 28 March 17 April 9 April
Ascension (l'Ascencion) 9 May 29 May 20 May 5 May 25 May 17 May
Pentecost (la Pentecôte) 19 May 8 June 30 May 15 May 4 June 27 May
Whit Monday 20 May 9 June 31 May 16 May 5 June 28 May

*In Alsace-Lorraine only.

In years when Ascension Day concurs with Victory Day, we mark only the former, thus ignoring the latter.

Metal workers have the holiday of St. Eloi, (Metal Workers get their own holiday? That's some Union!- ed. PT) July 24 (Festival of St. Eloi - French Basque).

Note that when a holiday happens to fall on a Tuesday or Thursday, many French workers may take the Monday or, respectively, Friday, off as well. This is not official and does not apply to institutions such as banks or government, but is sufficiently commonplace to cause difficulties doing business on occasion.

Makes me wonder how France managed to become a tourist trap in the first place. - ed. PT

PS Im no clearer about which holiday Mr. Chirac could use to visit the troops.

hey paper tiger, you're propably from Boston...:)

Stéphane: relax, have fun.

papertiger: would you believe it? The French have less holidays than most of the other European countries. But we work less in terms of annual hours of work due to the 35 hours - I'm sure you've heard about that as it surely streightened your opinion of France :)
If you travel in Italy or Spain, you will see that shops and even public offices (eg. museums) are often closed from 12h to 15h or 16h in the afternoon.

Makes me wonder how France managed to become a tourist trap in the first place
Even in France it's well-known that "when God created France, He found it too perfect, so He created the French to compensate."
Well, we're proud of our culture, that's a fact. And we are wrong to believe in a "French cultural exception". But it's true that we have an interesting artistic and historical patrimoine.

"what's jim crow laws? "

What is the practical difference between the US's Jim Crow laws, which continued to our shame until some years after Europeans stopped the systematic slaughter of Jews and Gypsies, and the segragation of Muslims in France? I have one. Jim Crow laws ended half a century ago, segragation of Muslims continues unabated.

Please don't drag Hockey players into this. There is one place where the left and right wings work together toward a shared goal.

"segragation of Muslims continues unabated"

Sure, here we have restaurants for white people and others for colored people...

Slavery is one thing, at least one can understand the social context of the time behind such practice.

Segregation on the other hand is another issue. Muslims were never barred from public establishments in France, I'm not sure where de-programer get this idea. Morrocans, Algerians etc... fought in the French army, from the Crimean war, WW1, WW2 to Indochina. On the other hand, the same thing cannot be said of African Americans. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,671189,00.html"

... nor did France ever adopt a policy of blatant racism against immigrants: http://sun.menloschool.org/~mbrody/ushistory/angel/exclusion_act/

You would have to go back to the Dreyfuss Affair to condemn the French government of such blatant act, and that's just against one man.

p.s. why don't my links work properly?

Damian,

For the record, despite France's horrendous record on women's rights, we never saw a problem granting a black woman (my God!) a pilot's licence

http://www.blackseek.com/bh/2001/123_BColeman.htm

zoomerx:
pour les liens
{a href="http://www.toto.com"}Toto{/a}
avec les balises inférieur supérieur à la place des { } :)

Merci Max ;-)

On the other hand, the same thing cannot be said of African Americans. Honour at last for war hero ignored for being black

From the article ; It was the summer of 1919, and the Ku Klux Klan was on the rise. The Harlem Hellfighters received no official American honours except the standard Purple Heart - "just a recognition that he'd been wounded", says Herman Johnson. "In spite of what some people may think of black people, we've fought in every war this country's ever had... It's a classic example of racism in our country."

Digging so deep into history by Democrats. All the usual suspects too. Pataki Clinton Shumer - cantakerous cranks all seeking to paste over their inadequacy in an election year, with the racist wall paper. Never mind that the triple K was a democratic invention. Never mind that the Jim Crow law's were instituted by southern Democrats. A bunch of white folk want to get their sorry ass elected again? Just invent a legendary black man that was "slighted", then rally to his defence.(When picking an imaginary slighted black man, it is best, if it is some obscure war hero or civil servant who is long dead, because rallying behind his cause won't mean taking a stand for any principle, or voting on anything that might correct situations in the real present day world.)

Have you ever ... LOL! My god how insulting to blacks. The Dems insult the blacks honor and intelligence, then keep teachers unions strong and history classes weak so no one will find out. If all black people knew, what the Dems have done to them over the years, there would be no democratic party.

Zoomerx

Regarding Menlo Park , Angel Island and racism against the Chinese in San Francisco.

Yes the Democratic party is a pernitious evil thing without a moral compass. Too often when I say "I am from California" people immediately associate me with that den of bigots and traitors in SF. Believe me San Franciscans have a skewed view of America.

Could it not have been a blessing in disguise for Young black bootilicius Bessie Coleman to be denyied a pilot's licence, considering her untimely demise? Now really, flight schools during World War One bar Bessie from taking class. No doubt the teacher was Wilber himself. And the Red baron was shooting French Spads out of the sky at a break neck clip.

Some nerve calling this racism.

Ricardo/Adam/David/Smith

Todays meaningless score on that stupid game

Tampa Bay 3 Montreal 1
(wait that can't be right, The polliwogs actually scored?)

Still no ice in Tampa. Perhaps this is why the Canadiens are having such a poor showing...? maybe some training wheels would help?

In the other game
Phi Flyers 2 Tor Maple Bars 1

Sure, here we have restaurants for white people and others for colored people...
“colored” is a phrase that really has not been used since the middle 1960’s.

However, I do recall reading about signs in France, during WWII, that read “No Dogs or Jews”.

You are right, though, Max. Nothing about the color of their skin…..

Stéphane,

You ask: "where did you find out that we started a challenge against the US ??"

Well, you can look here (vid., Adam Ricardo's [aka, Adam Smith-qua-David Ricardo-qua-Adam Ricardo] comments at #18) or way back here (vid., M. Pascal's comments at #17). And no, I take no pleasure in French misbehaving, but neither do I care for French posturing. My complaint is not with every French person throughout time. My complaint is with smug contemporary Frenchies who look in the mirror and see moral giants.

M. Adam Smith-qua-David Ricardo-qua-Adam Ricardo,

You made yourself ridiculous with your inconstant names. Perhaps you haven't noticed, as you don't seem too careful a reader, I'm hardly the only one amused by your multiple personalities. Your repeated whining only serves to remind Pave anew of your inauthenticity. But then you exhort us:

and don't give up mocking my nickname and my english it's so intelligent....
Posted by: Adam Ricardo on March 28, 2004 01:35 PM:

M. Zoomerx,

I commend France for welcoming Bessie Coleman into the ranks of aviators.

You’re most likely correct in your surmise that African Americans have not served in the French army, "from the Crimean War, WWI, WWII, to Indochina", in comparable numbers to Morrocans, Algerians, etc. Few of us were aware the French army even recruited African Americans. However, if you’d like to read about African
Americans in the U.S. military you can start here and read about the eventual great success of military integration here. Don't skim the ledes. If you want the full story, it's a bit of reading.

The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) to which you refer predates the Dreyfus affair (October 15, 1894) by some 12 years. That makes French "blatant racism" the more modern of the two, that is, less of a reach-back than the CEA, which confounds the very point you advance.

As you equate anti-Semitism with racism, we hardly need trek all the way back to the Dreyfus affair for examples, nor Vichy France, why we need only read the newspapers. Of course as a colonial power, French white racism remains a local affair lording over aboriginal peoples, who, it is doubtful, are hankering to emigrate, if they could, to the wellspring of their oppression.

De-programmer,

My point is detailed, and not too subtly, in the penultimate paragraph of the post. I remain genuinely curious as to the French compass of their own history.

Regards all,
DGB

I am speaking of de facto segratation. What is the unemployment rate for Muslims in France? Who is it that lives in the famous banlieues? You are telling me with a straight face that Muslims are accepted into French society?

Once again. Jim Crow laws ended half a century ago. Criticizing the US for them now is pointless and faintly ridiculous. If we call the French 'cheese stealing surrender monkeys' and refer back to the last war, it is because there is no evidence that French behavior has changed over the years. So if you insist on bringing up Jim Crow laws, I would like to see current examples that show that it is still relevant to current American society.

I was a baby when Jim Crow was abolished, so I don't really feel that much responsibility for it. I am responsible for what is happening today. So lets have some current examples of widespread and systematic US racism please.

My point is detailed, and not too subtly,

What evidence can be gleaned from the writings of your French correspondents in support of your contention that they could possibly comprehend the beating that you adminstered with the post? I still say it was too subtle for the poliwogs. But I will concede that it is a matter of opinion.

Damian Bennett,

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a policy passed by the US Congress. At least Alfred Dreyfuss had a lawyer...

andy,

Your point about Jews is fair, but rather out of context.

drive-by,

I'm telling you with straight face that most muslims are "accepted" in French society (the mayor of Paris is Tunisian-born), the same way Hispanics are generally accepted in the US.

So, what is the Muslim unemployment rate in France?

For comparison purposes, here is the US black unemployment rate recently. I don't have the current figure.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national average for June 2002 was 5.9 percent. When broken down, the national average for whites was 5.2, and for blacks it was 10.7"

http://newshound.de.siu.edu/online/stories/storyReader$5316

You are not against either war or terrorism, you have just chosen to be on the side of Islam.
Posted by Drive-By at April 16, 2004 04:33 PM

Drive-By, please, don't be hypocrite, we all know that you hate muslims and Islam.

You accuse french people to be antisemitic? Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians.

Now, you know that you are too.

How about anti-Jewish? Because that's like a national sport over there in France. Spitting on Jews and desecrating their graves are a big part of French (anti-American) culture.

... nor did France ever adopt a policy [scil., CEA] of blatant racism against immigrants You would have to go back to the Dreyfuss Affair to condemn the French government of such blatant act, and that's just against one man. Posted by zoomerx at April 25, 2004 05:59 PM

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a policy passed by the US Congress. At least Alfred Dreyfuss had a lawyer...
Posted by zoomerx at April 26, 2004 02:49 PM

M. Zoomerx,

I'm not here as an apologist for the CEA, which was hateful business. Why do you persist in trying to game points with the Dreyfus affair?

Your argument and the illustrative evidence you advanced equates the "blatancy" of the CEA with the Dreyfus affair. This is your argument, not mine. My point is that the Dreyfus example is the more contemporary event, one not requiring a reach-back as far as the CEA. You respond by saying the CEA was a government policy and M. Dreyfus had a lawyer. Are you here un-arguing your earlier equivalency?

As for government policy...

The extra-legal despoiling and deportation of Jews was a French government policy, part of its collaboration with its Nazi wardens with 90,000, a staggering 60%, of the pre-war Jewish population (150,000) in France being killed. Needless to say, this is even less of a reach-back than the Dreyfus affair and far less than the CEA.

Here are four suggestions: 1) Try vetting your evidential material before rushing into the threads; 2) don't construct clumsy moral relativist arguments, the very point of this post; 3) answer the points raised, not just the ones you happen to like; 4) when you have botched your best shot, retire with grace.

M. Max,

Since you are neither informed nor very bright, here is the definition of anti-Semitism being used here at Pave:

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

Here is the same from Dictionnaire de l'Académie française:

ANTISÉMITISME. n. m. Lutte contre les Juifs.

I've not much skill in French, but I assume you can manage.

Then there is this article from the same site you source:

The term was introduced in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a German political agitator. At the time it designated anti Jewish campaigns in Europe. Soon, however, it came to be applied to the hostility and hatred directed toward Jews since before the Christian era.

[Emphasis added for the benefit of M. Max.]

No mention of Arab peoples in the whole of the article.

Here is essentially the same article sourced in French:

Le mot antisémitisme a été inventé en 1873 par un journaliste allemand, Wilhelm Marr, pour désigner la haine des juifs, c'est-à-dire des pratiquants de la religion développée par les Hébreux.

If you read on a little, it disposes of your little sophistry:

En désignant la haine des juifs et d'eux seuls, le mot antisémitisme est à l'origine d'une question très actuelle : un arabophone qui hait les juifs peut-il être qualifié d'antisémite ? Le mot antijuif serait mieux adapté... mais la tradition historique s'oppose à son emploi.

I'm sure Drive-by will not rub your nose in the apology you owe him for your nasty gloat, much.

DGB

great! so Drive-By is just racist, I'm reassured now.

thanks Damian

Max, I will give you the point on the comment being racist. Anti Semetic is quite a stretch. I should have said that you are on the side of the Islamic Fascists, which include a very vocal and violent minority of Islamic people.

Damian Bennett,

The Chinese Exclusion Act and Segregation - were in fact Laws .

While it is true that anti-semitism was rather rampant in France, The Dreyfuss Affair was just a case of blatant racism orchestrated by a group of individuals within the army high ranks. There's nothing an Emile Zola in 1898 could have done to stop Segregation.

As far as the deportation of Jews, you make a fair point but you should refer to Vichy France and the circumstances surrounding these horrible events in wartime. Before 1940 and after 1945, Jews were never barred from checking into a hotel or a restaurant.

point but you should refer to Vichy France and the circumstances surrounding these horrible events in wartime. Before 1940 and after 1945, Jews were never barred from checking into a hotel or a restaurant.

To be fair to the French, the Emancipation Act of September 27, 1791 made France the first country to grant civil rights to Jews. (1)

But there was anti-Semitism “Before 1940”. “In the political crisis that characterized the French political scene in the 1930’s, with its accompanying outburst of xenophobia and anti-Semitism…Inevitably the Jewish were anxiously aware of their own status as unwanted foreigners” (2)

So by the time the Germans came in, the French population was pretty much against the immigrants (Jews) coming to France because of world wide depression in the 1930’s and later in the 30’s because of the German policies in eastern Europe.

Sorry folks, I’m more “old school”. My references are books, not links. If you’d like to check: (1) “The Jews of Paris and the Final Solution” and (2) an interesting collection of articles that appeared in the French/Jewish press about the relationship between the French and Jews “Sois Juif et tais-toi!”. Both are out of print, got mine in used book store.

Jews were persecuted all over Europe including England where they were kicked out in the 11th century. Ironically it is Napoleon who did something about it.

All our laws are subject to judicial review. A Chinese man could get a lawyer and challenge the law.
Chinese exclusion acts were not struck down rather a new law that superceded the Chinese Exclusion act was passed by Congress allowing immigration from China.

Before the Chinese exclusion Act the United States didn't have immigration laws at all. How many Euro countries have unrestricted borders?
Do Euro countries regulate immigration. Aren't you picky about granting citizenxhip to illegal immigrants? I bet you are.

Sure we are. Here's some info on Chinese immigration.

The originally came to France during WW1 to help build railways and roads behind battle lines.

PT,

A special thanks for righting my argument, for which see below.

Thanks again,
DGB

M. Zoomerx,

You might benefit, as I have, from reading the actual Chinese Exclusion Act and not the Menlo School's inflammatory hash. Read it and point out to me its racist or sinister provisions. Having read it, I'm keen to know why you have branded it racist, other than because your link's synopsis said so.

As Papertiger, above, observes correctly it is an immigration law, not as I, having taken your and the Menlo School’s “racist” epithet at face value, incorrectly surmised, "hateful business".

If your argument is that all immigration laws are “racist” in some sinister sense then everyone’s in trouble.

This then only leaves the Dreyfus affair.

Your first post references the CEA then gives the Dreyfus affair as an equivalent French example of "blatant racism". Again, this is your line of argument, not mine. You spend the next several posts arguing details that you now maintain disproves they are equivalent. The distinctions you offer are of the moral relativistic sort, the latest being that the CEA was a law whereas the Dreyfus affair was only prosecuted by a French government rampant with anti-Semiticism. This, my friend, is a distinction without a difference.

We do not howl at the moon here at Pave. Take the time to clearly make your argument and Pave will give you a fair hearing. Do a better job and you may find us agreeing.

As far as referring to France by "flavors", e.g., Vichy flavor, now what is the point of that? The Vichy government was a French constitutional government (Constitutional Act No.2 of 07.11.40 to the Third Republic Constitution and regularized by Constitutional Act No.7 of 01.27.41) run by Frenchmen and governing Frenchmen. Albert Lebrun, the Third Republic president (1932-1940), invited Marshall Henri Philippe Pétain to form a government following the resignation of Paul Reynaud.

Vichy France is not some other France that doesn't belong to French history. Just as the Forty-Seventh Congress is forever a part of America's history.

DGB

I should have said that you are on the side of the Islamic Fascists

and this is wrong too, french government and french people are not on the side of these fascist, remember that France fighted talibans with your troops, and don't forget that we are their target since 1995.

Sincerely, we are not enemies, even if sometimes we don't have the same methods and the same ideas.

Well of course Damian Bennett, pointing out the actual Exclusion Act document and asking me to find any hint of "racism" is like me challenging you to find any mention of "anti-semitism" in the official charges against Dreyfuss by the French army (the charge was "espionage", right?). It's a little desingenuous. The fact is, Chinese immigrants in 19th century America were routinely labeled as "yellow monkeys" and other adjectives in the papers, even among politicians, in a wave of mass hysteria directed at new, "non-white" immigrant labor, which prompted the Exclusion Act. If this is not racism, I don't know what is.

My point: The Dreyfuss Affair was a case of blatant racism, not a policy of racism as the Exclusion Act or Segregation were in America, which led to the separation of Church and State in France. The end of Slavery did not completely "free" blacks, did it? So yes, France has a racist past, however, it has been rather more progressive than the US in dealing with it at home. I'm just a little sick and tired of hearing many Americans branding France as "racist" when they can't seem to recognize their own sordid past regarding the matter (I won't even go into the slaughter of Native Indians and Slavery, which to me are events originally brought by historical circumstances first and foremost). See, I'm trying to be objective...

As far as the Vichy government, I pointed out to you that you made a fair point, therefore I acknowledge it is an integral part of French history. The distinction is important however, for me personnally. Like thousands of other Frenchmen, my uncle was a "déporté politique" and ended up in a firing squad at Buchenwald, Germany. The deportation of Jews during the Vichy was the darkest episode of French history, let's be clear about that, but it was a consequence of Germany's dark ambitions. Pre-1945 Jews were never barred from establishments or political life, ask Ellie Wiesel.

M. Zoomerx,

The Dreyfus affair was actually four cases, the first in which he was unanimously convicted, the second, 5 years later, in which the original verdict was reviewed, the third another court-martial in which he was found guilty (5-2), and the fourth, 12 years later, in which the second conviction was quashed.

The first case was prosecuted with the full complicity of the government. It was the government that insisted, over the objections of the defense, the trial be held in camera. General Auguste Mercier, the government's Minister of War, doctored evidence and slipped the dossier to the judges then considering the verdict (i.e., after arguments) in violation of Article 101 of the Penal Code. Later it was the government that prosecuted Emile Zola, following the publication of J'Accuse", for defamation, and convicted him, meting the maximum sentence (a year in prison and a Fr3,000 fine). When the Criminal Chamber of the High Court reviewed the original conviction, the Chamber of Deputies, under the influence of the anti-Dreyfusards, unconstitutionally passed a law transferring jurisdiction of the appeal to all three branches of the High Court sitting as one in hopes of queering an annulment.

The racism you recognize, which practice was evidenced in all branches of government, would then constitute a policy of said government.

More important than policy, the Dreyfus case revealed the fulminant anti-Semiticism in France. This is not to say that France was wholly anti-Semitic, otherwise poor Dreyfus would have rotted on Devil's Island; but the anti-Dreyfusards were not about justice. They were about sticking it to a Jew. And they were legion.

Now regarding your disgust with 19th century American immigration law, please give us your opinion of French colonial policy at the end of the 19th century, where emigration was curtailed to keep the indigenes working on the farm. Or give us your thoughts on the dual systems of laws and rights that were maintained in French colonies, one for French citizens and another for the natives. Where the full rights and protections of the French citizen were only vouchsafed those who assimilated, an assimilation that entailed forswearing one's religion (if not Christian) and customs. We are keen to know, since you are practiced in moral relativism, how French colonialism was more progressive, more enlightened, so much more superior in its time to American immigration law.

So let's look again at why you are here, M. Zoomerx.

You enter the thread and make broad claims of American racism based on what is an immigration law. You give -- in your estimation -- an equivalent French example, then spend several posts arguing against your original position.

You ask for a special dispensation for France as regards the Vichy government, yet you offer no such consideration for any American government. You are heartsick over the Vichy government and its crimes, yet it seems in French eyes America can never be contrite enough for its "sordid past".

This post is about Pave being bored to tears with Frenchies parading around here claiming America is racist, that America is somehow uniquely and solely responsible for slavery, and the smug glee of their pronouncements.

There is no one in the Pave community who disavows slavery or the Indian wars in America's past. But slavery didn't go away by itself or by decree, a blood price was paid. And it was gotten rid of once, not twice. Nor was it extenuated as dual-rights in faraway colonies.

DGB

Damian:

Maine was admitted to the Union in 1820. Prior to that, it was part of Massachusetts, which abolished slavery in 1780.

Tom,

If you mean to suggest that Maine's prohibition of slavery dates from Massachusetts law, that is plain wrong.

The Maine constitution is the determinative legal basis for its prohibition of slavery not the Massachusetts interdict.

By your reasoning the creation of West Virginia, proceeding from Virginia law, would have resulted in another slave state.

If this is not what you mean, then I am at a loss why you repeat dates as given in the original post.

DGB

I know you guys are enjoying your banter, but can anyone answer this? I don't seriously hold the French of today responsible for the atrocities of WWII. Maybe the French should stop pointing to events of half a century ago to try to impugn American motives today. Jim Crow carries as much weight with us as WWII does with you, which is that it was terrible, the world would have been a better place if it had not happened, but it is OVER.

Drive-by,

What are we to answer? You follow your solicitation with a series of personal declarative statements.

If you go back and read the original post you will find this:

Let me be clear about the matter before us. It is NOT condemning the 18th and 19th centuries for not being the 21st century. No, the question is just how defective is the French acquaintance with their own defective past that Frenchies presume to game points on slavery?

Jim Crow laws and the Vichy government are still instructive discussion topics for understanding the persistence of racism and anti-Semitism, in perceptions and in acts, that America and France, respectively, struggle with to this day.

As for bowing out, that's your choice.

DGB

"All National League teams intergates, John Irwin Kennedy is 1st black on Phillies 1957 not so bad eh!"
-- Adam Ricardo

This was the original comment that started this donnybrook IMHO. My contention is that it is largely irrelevant to discussion of American policy today. The French won't give it up because it lets them 'score points' without thinking, or knowing anything, about what conditions are like in the US today.

Since they can't answer the arguments, they attack the credibility of Americans. Otherwise they could not live with themselves, or they would have to change their positions.

"Maybe the French should stop pointing to events of half a century ago to try to impugn American motives today."

I guess instead of just leading with 'Maybe', I should have finished the sentence with a question mark? It seemed clear enough to me. However, since I choose to write exclusively in English, instead of my lousy French, you are right to hold me to a higher standard.

Oh yeah. I thought that 'drive by' was kind of ridiculous since I seem to hang out here every day. Some of my computers still have the old cookie.

De-P,

Ah. M. Adam Smith-qua-David Ricardo-qua-Adam Ricardo is not here to discuss, he is here to sneer. So, yes, the relevance resides in the sneer. But there has been something to learn in engaging M. Zoomerx, if only to sharper my own arguments.

I am willing to argue history with the French, but not moral relativism, which is not moral argument at all but gaming points, my original complaint.

Also French slavery and her slave trade are simply not taught in French schools. I have sought to remedy the omission.

Regards,
DGB

Hey, I never said it wasn't good fun!

I read about the Ivory Coast in the paper today. It seems the Ivorie Government is killing off cocoa bean farmers to steal their crop. As we all remember, this is the puppet government, the French are defending from the "rebels".
Can't find a link to the AP story.

-Frenchman Michael Soussan, a former program coordinator for the $100 billion fund, is expected to be the star witness of a House International Relations Committee hearing looking into Saddam’s gigantic $10.1 billion rip-off.

The UNSCAM pot is really starting to boil.

Zoomerx, thanks for the link on Napoleon it’s a good one. I enjoyed reading it. As for the rest of your comments, well…..

Vichy was the darkest episode of French history, let's be clear about that, but it was a consequence of Germany's dark ambitions.

Germany’s dark ambitions caused the anti-Semitic stance of the Vichy regime? Anti-Semitism was extremely prevalent in practically every level of society in France, say from the late nineteenth-century to the mid 1930’s, when it really took off blaming the Jew$ for every economic, social or political problem. Vichy needed no help from the Germans to “take care of the Jewish problem”. Unless you meant that Germany’s “dark ambitions” caused an enormous influx of Jewish immigrations into France from Eastern Europe, which, of course, helped fan the flames of anti-Semitism in mid to late 30’s.

You sound like De Gaulle and his followers in saying the Vichy regime was an illegal ‘parenthesis’ for which France should not be held to account. Mitterrand was worse in promoting that Vichy was an aberration, saying the French nation was never involved, nor was the French Republic.

It is difficult for the French to accept the reality that France “was the only occupied country in WWII whose government remained on its national territory, which accepted its military defeat as final, which broke with its past, creating a new regime that changed from a democratic to an anti-Semitic authoritarian system, whose legal government and police worked and acted in support of anti-Semitic policies, and which transformed itself from the great independent power status of the past to one of collaboration with the enemy.” (Verdict on Vichy, Michael Curtis)

It is difficult for the French to accept the reality that the “10,000 Jews deported from the unoccupied zone which Vichy administered were the only Jews killed in the Holocaust who came from an area without any German military presence at the time.” (Twentieth Century France Politics and Society 1898-1991)

Heck, written too much to go after you other points...gotta go get my beauty rest!

"Mais pour la première fois, le Financial Times et le journal italien Il Sole 24 Ore ont pu établir le 12 avril que l'homme d'affaires américano-irakien Shakir Khafaji, dont le nom figurait sur la liste, avait bien reçu de Saddam Hussein des coupons donnant droit à des allocations de pétrole (1 million de barils).

Khafaji a dit avoir vendu ces coupons à une compagnie italienne, Italtech, qui a vendu le pétrole à une firme de Houston (Texas). Le système de coupons permettait aux bénéficiaires de ne pas apparaître dans la comptabilité de l'ONU. Khafaji a financé un film de Scott Ritter, ancien inspecteur de l'ONU, contre les sanctions de l'ONU. Il a aussi donné 5 000 dollars au représentant démocrate antiguerre Jim McDermott, qui, mis en cause par la presse, a remboursé l'argent."

Le Monde

Feeling used yet?

"Where all men think alike, few think at all" Think about that polliwogs, if you are still able.

One trait of useful idiots is that they will strive to remain useful.

Did the US press report this???

"Did the US press report this???"

Is this a serious question?

Scott Ritter, apologist for a brutal regime

The trials and tribulations of Scott Ritter haven't been a headline story, but have been covered for over a year in occasional small stories. His inexplicable shift in position from "WMD" to "no WMD", his pro-Saddam film, even his cavorting with underage girls on the Internet have popped up from time to time. He's also done a number of speaking engagements.

French slavery and her slave trade are simply not taught in French schools (DGB)

Link please? that's wrong. it is taught in 5eme (12-13 years old) and then again in 2nde (15-16 years old). and it is always widely developped by the teachers.

Your point ("how defective is the French acquaintance with their own past?") is very interesting. Particularly on Vichy, and the attitude of Zoomerx could be an example of our collective reluctance to face this period of our recent history.
But couldn't the same question be asked replacing "French" by "Americans"?

In some contexts, yes, but I have a hard time identifying slavery as one of them. I think that every American of any age is aware of this part of our past, beyond any chance of putting it under the rug.

Greetings!