The French Fête Nationale commemorates the storming of the Bastille, a defense fortress built in 1382. After 7 seiges and 6 surrenders it had lost any pretense as a mighty bulwark, and by 1789 served as a prison and magazine. In this most feared prison:

...[a]ll of the rooms until the year 1701 were left unfurnished. Wealthy political prisoners were allowed to bring in their own furniture, many even brought their own servants with them. Meals were of generous proportions, and more luxurious meals could be bought if the prisoner was wealthy enough. Most prisoners were docile. They were allowed to walk freely around the fortress, talk with officers and other prisoners and play games. Many had their own personal hobbies, and a few were even allowed to visit the city of Paris on parole. The Bastille was much more comfortable, even homelike, than the horrific rumors that circled around France proclaimed.

Several histories describe the storming of this fortress-qua-prison as an assualt on the absolutism of the monarchy, e.g., Wikipedia:

[T]he Bastille was a symbol of the absolutism of the monarchy. ... Many historians believe that the storming of the Bastille was more important as a rallying point and symbolic act of rebellion than any practical act of defiance.

Well, symbolism is about all that's left when busting the boogeyman of political oppression nets only 7 prisoners: four forgers, two lunatics, and a young noble. And symbolism puts a nice historical guaziness over the mob's gratuitous beheading of the jail's governor, Bernard-René de Launay, and parading his head about Paris on a pike, what a nice story:

[T]he gouvernor de Launay had to be protected by two guards from the furor of the people and was escorted to the City Hall, but there he was lynched and stabbed to death. Three other officers and three soldiers were lynched as well, and the president of the city comittee at the City Hall, Flesselles, who had sent a letter to de Launay to endure, was shot with a pistol. Their heads were cut off, spitted on pikes, and carried around in triumph.

Monarchal absolutism was also far from absolute. Les lois fondamentales du royaume had long curbed even the mightest king. The summons in May 1789 of the États-Généraux was the first such since 1614 and granted the third estate equal representation to the first two estates combined, "and on June 17, 1789 [the tiers] arrived at the celebrated decision by which it affirmed the principle of the national supremacy residing in the mass of the nation; the deputies, without any distinction of order, constituted a National Assembly, which assembly was called upon to regenerate France by giving her a constitution, while the royal power (which in reality became provisional) could not veto its decisions." Louis XVI, the "absolute" monarch, failed to maintain the quarreling estates structure and royalist deputies who had stood apart joined the National Assembly at the request of the king. None of this sounds like pantocratic absolutism.

So why the big fuss over the Bastille? It established no principles. It manifested no republican virtues. It did not materially advance the French political experiment. It only announced the bloodlust that came to characterize the French revolution. Its savagery aside, in the scheme of French history it seems a trifle compared to, say, the earlier and more politically momentous serment du jeu de paume.

Here is an invitation to our French correspondents to set Pave straight. Just what do Frenchies find so glorious about this murderous mob action -- other than its kicking off the French vacation season?

our national anthem still invites our people to kill the monarchist foreign neighbours and spill their blood.
our flag still carries the white strap of monarchy.
our national day still celebrates the liberation of four forgers, two lunatics, and a young noble.
i agree that le Serment du Jeu de Paume would have been a better choice, but the tradition of July 14th dates back to 1790 and the firstFête de la Fédération

BTW, you still celebrate Thanksgiving Day, with kids playing at school dressed like little natives.

M. Goldsoundz,

Regarding American Thanksgiving, the native Indian and pilgrim pageants celebrate the peaceful relations between the peoples. I am not aware of any American holiday that celebrates the Indian Wars (there is no such Federal holiday) .

Here is what puzzles me about the contemporary French, they are dogmatic about capital punishment, they do not ostensibly condone the martial resolution of any situation (at least by any other than themselves), and they are very delicate about holding the most politically correct opinions. Yet they glory in a past that is savage, bloody, brutal, and cruel: From the Bastille, to the Noyades, to the political expediency of the guillotine.

It just seems, well, odd.

I am genuinely puzzled and appreciate your insight.

Regards,
DGB

About the Bastille Day and more generally the French Revolution, i'd say it was gloried during the third republic, but since 1945 it has been questioned by historians, particularly after the studies of American historians - there are probably more and better specialists of the French Revolution in the US than in France- who revealed the truth on some mythical aspects of the Revolution, eg. Bastille Day.
The truth is that now, it is a period that a large majority of the French don't know very well and don't understand -and they stuck to the myth.

but i can assure you we don't glory the political expediency of the guillotine ;)

Sorry, off subject here. This post has to do with 2 previous threads, about Darfur and about “Friend or Foe”, both of which were topics of the other treads. Thought I’d post here since they are both back a ways.

It’s been a busy week for Jean-David Levitte. He is the Ambassador Embassy of France, here in DC. He wrote letters to the editors of the Washington Times and the Washington Post this week.

The first, to the Washington Times is linked
HERE. (This link shows ALL letters to the editor, and M. Levitte’s is down lower, about 5th, so scroll down to it). It is a response to the “Friend or Foe?” article that was posted here in pave under the thread called REQUIRED READING (FRIEND OR FOE - FRANCE):

The second, to the Washington Post, I could not find in their web site (you must register anyway) so I will type parts that are interesting.

He was responding to this commentary by the editors of the Post, about Darfur and the UN asking for $350 million to finance relief there. Also about French “oil interests” causing France to hold back in Darfur. The Post said, in part:
“According to a UN count of firm commitments since March, the US has promised $62 million, Britain about $11 million. But Germany, France and Japan have each promised less than $4 million. The tightfistedness of these allies is outrageous, as is the reluctance of France and other members of the UN Security Council to support a tough resolution on Darfur. To excuse their failure to contribute to Iraq’s reconstruction, these nations complain that the Bush administration’s Iraq policy was insufficiently deferential to the United Nations. But none other than the UN secretary general has just visited Darfur to demonstrate the urgency of humanitarian action. What excuse can there be now?”

M. Levitte responded to the Post (my edit, not the full text):
“At the political level, France has played a key role along with the United States in bringing about negotiations on Darfur. These combined efforts and the involvement of Chad’s president … led to a cease fire… April 8. France’s mobilization on Darfur also produced resolute action in the UN… adoption of Resolution 1547 on June 11. Our commitment is absolute and based on a simple principle: Nothing can justify defenseless civilians being threatened. So I was shocked to read the June 20 editorial alleging that the existence of oil interests is driving France to be less than objective in the conflict in Darfur.”

“France’s Total oil company holds only a single concession in Sudan. It is in the south, not Darfur. Total broke off oil prospecting when war resumed in 1983 and has no plans to resume operations until after a comprehensive peace agreement is signed.”

“That is why France will keep working, in close consultation with the US, to see peace restored.”

He still didn’t say why they are not coughing up any more money, however.

Yet they glory in a past that is savage, bloody, brutal, and cruel: From the Bastille, to the Noyades, to the political expediency of the guillotine.

The context is a little more complex than that, Damian, but fair enough. So how was your History founded? You settle over 500 years ago, decimate Indians tribes, establish slavery, annex Mexican lands, ban slavery, yet continue a brutal policy of discrimination until the 1960's, all of that without any costly, complex and lenghty foreign wars affecting much of your policies.

Predictably, a "brutal and cruel" past doesn't apply to you. You're either suffering from delusions or perharps you're kidding?

Zoomer

"So how was your History founded? "

Glad you asked. We founded our history on the people who were fed up with the political expediency of the guillotine, religious bigotry, and general lack of concern exibitied by your European countries. Avoiding a series of wars perpetrated by little men glorified beyond their ability and only enpowered by their familial heritage, was just a bonus.

Alot of us have a native grandparent or great grandparent, which makes us native (1/4-1/8)enough to celebrate our own culture.

And Frenchie, the New England states banned slavery long before France and the U.S.A. as a whole. It's only the southeast of the country, which, by the way, France financed in its racist civil war to keep blacks enslaved. As if Africa, the middle east, China, and parts of South America weren't enough for France to suppress. You people are the REAL reason the entire planet hates the West, and I can't blame them. If I were dominated by France at any time in the past, it would make me spiteful and unproductive as well. If we hadn't just gotten done at the turn of the entury capturing eighty of your ships, we might have had to invade you over the civil war. Instead, we just made it unconstitutional for anyone to pay the Democrat South's debt to France.

Oh, and then we ended your evil empire. That's right: the U.S. Military had to take your colonies from you by force, just like the Spanish. Of course, Mexico was able to liberate itself from the croissant-eating, cowboy-phobic French, a day I celebrate every Cinco de Mayo in San Diego.

Answer this question for my Jewish stepfather: why did Vichy France send their Jews off to the concentration camps without being being asked to do so by Hitler?

The United States invaded a distant country to share the blessings of democracy. But after being welcomed as liberators, U.S. troops encountered a bloody insurrection. Sound familiar? Don’t think Iraq—think the Philippines and Mexico decades ago. U.S. President George W. Bush and his advisors have embarked on a historic mission to change the world. Too bad they ignored the lessons of history.

On October 18, 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush landed in Manila as part of a six-nation Asian tour. The presidential airplane, Air Force One, was shepherded into Philippine airspace by F-15 fighter jets due to security concerns over a possible terrorist attack. Bush's speech to the Philippine Congress was delayed by what one reporter described as “undulating throngs of protestors that lined his motorcade route past shantytowns and rows of shacks.” Outside the Philippine House of Representatives, several thousand more demonstrators greeted Bush, and several Philippine legislators staged a walkout during his 20-minute address.

This article is an
excerpt from the
The Folly of Empire
by John Judis.
Order the book
from Amazon now.



In that speech, Bush credited the United States for transforming the Philippines into a democracy. “America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people,” said Bush. “Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule.” He drew an analogy between the United States' attempt to create democracy in the Philippines and its effort to create a democratic Middle East through the invasion and occupation of Iraq. “Democracy always has skeptics,” the president said. “Some say the culture of the Middle East will not sustain the institutions of democracy. The same doubts were once expressed about the culture of Asia. These doubts were proven wrong nearly six decades ago, when the Republic of the Philippines became the first democratic nation in Asia.”

As many Philippine commentators remarked afterward, Bush's rendition of Philippine-American history bore little relation to fact. True, the U.S. Navy ousted Spain from the Philippines in the Spanish-American War of 1898. But instead of creating a Philippine democracy, the McKinley administration, its confidence inflated by victory in that “splendid little war,” annexed the country and installed a colonial administrator. The United States then waged a brutal war against the same Philippine independence movement it encouraged to fight against Spain. The war dragged on for 14 years. Before it ended, about 120,000 U.S. troops were deployed, more than 4,000 were killed, and more than 200,000 Filipino civilians and soldiers were killed. Resentment lingered a century later during Bush's visit.

As for the Philippines' democracy, the United States can take little credit for what exists and some blame for what doesn't. The electoral machinery the United States designed in 1946 provided a democratic veneer beneath which a handful of families, allied to U.S. investors—and addicted to kickbacks—controlled the Philippine land, economy, and society. The tenuous system broke down in 1973 when Philippine politician Ferdinand Marcos had himself declared president for life. Marcos was finally overthrown in 1986, but even today Philippine democracy remains more dream than reality. Three months before Bush's visit, a group of soldiers staged a mutiny that raised fears of a military coup. With Islamic radicals and communists roaming the countryside, the Philippines is perhaps the least stable of Asian nations. If the analogy between the United States' “liberation” of the Philippines and of Iraq holds true, it will not be to the credit of the Bush administration, but to the skeptics who charged that the White House undertook the invasion of Baghdad with its eyes wide shut.

Politicians often rewrite history to their own purposes, but, as Bush's remarks suggested, there was more than passing significance to his revisionist account of the Spanish-American War. It reflected not just a distorted view of a critical episode in U.S. foreign policy but the rejection of important, negative lessons that Americans later drew from their brief experiment in creating an overseas empire. The United States' decision to invade and occupy Iraq wasn't, of course, a direct result of this misreading of the past. If Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (the administration's leading neoconservative) had remembered the brutal war the United States fought in the Philippines or similar misadventures in Mexico, or the blighted history of Western imperialism in the Middle East, they still might have invaded Iraq. But they also might have had second, third, or even fourth thoughts about what Bush, unconsciously echoing the imperialists of a century ago, called a “historic opportunity to change the world.”

Divine Interventionism

Prior to the annexation of the Philippines, the United States stood firmly against countries acquiring overseas colonies, just as American colonists once opposed Britain's attempt to rule them. But by taking over parts of the Spanish empire, the United States became the kind of imperial power it once denounced. It was now vying with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan for what future U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt called “the domination of the world.”

Some Americans argued the country needed colonies to bolster its military power or to find markets for its capital. But proponents of imperialism, including Protestant missionaries, also viewed overseas expansion through the prism of the country's evangelical tradition. Through annexation, they insisted, the United States would transform other nations into communities that shared America's political and social values and also its religious beliefs. “Territory sometimes comes to us when we go to war in a holy cause,” U.S. President William McKinley said of the Philippines in October 1900, “and whenever it does the banner of liberty will float over it and bring, I trust, the blessings and benefits to all people.” This conviction was echoed by a prominent historian who would soon become president of Princeton University. In 1901, Woodrow Wilson wrote in defense of the annexation of the Philippines: “The East is to be opened and transformed, whether we will or no; the standards of the West are to be imposed upon it; nations and peoples which have stood still the centuries through are to be quickened and to be made part of the universal world of commerce and of ideas which has so steadily been a-making by the advance of European power from age to age.”

Answer this question for my Jewish stepfather: why did Vichy France send their Jews off to the concentration camps without being being asked to do so by Hitler?

I don't know, its jake, I'm sorry, but just because I'm French doesn't mean my father worshiped Petain. Quite the contrary, he signed up with the Free French on his birthday (then went on to Vietnam). His older brother was executed by a SS firing squad at the Buchenwald camp in 1944 as a "political deportee", like thousands of other French men and women. Keep in mind that 600,000 French died in WW2. Did you know Jews were refused entry by US immigration during WW2?

Glad you asked. We founded our history on the people who were fed up with the political expediency of the guillotine, religious bigotry, and general lack of concern exibitied by your European countries.

The same people who did the deeds I described, therefore your anscestors.

I wonder how many Philipino refugees wash up on rafts, at the shores of Australia? I'll take a quick check of the languages they are printing the local school newsletter in. Lets see Vietnamese Cyrillic Spanish (could it be Philipino Style Spanish?)

M. Zoomerx,

I've addressed these tuo quoque arguments severally in the threads. To see how France and America compare on slavery and equal rights I invite you to revisit my earlier post on the subject.

The question is why celebrate the storming of the Bastille? There were far more profound events before and after this bloody and inglorious event:

May 5, 1789 the convocation of the États-Généraux
June 17, 1789 the establishing declaration of the Assemblée nationale
June 20, 1789 Le serment du Jeu de Paume
July 9, 1789 the naming of Assemblée nationale constituante
September 22, 1792 the abolition of the French monarchy and the declaration of the French Republic (I)
August 17, 1795 the Convention approves the French Constitution; September 26, 1795 the constitution takes effect after plebiscite

Any of these -- actual accomplishments -- seem more glorious, more worthy of French pride, than the mob at the Bastille -- the same mob that only two weeks later (July 27) traded in their revolutionary cries of "Long live the nation" to "Long live the king".

Here your insight will carry some authority.

Regards,
DGB

Sport,

After fourteen years of Gorilla warfare on Malaria Islands you expect us to believe only 4,000 casualties?
This fellow John Judis (bet he had his names spelling changed legally) is a dirty yellow dog liar. And you Sport are a non critical thinking chowder head for polluting this blog with that drivel.

Here is the history of the Philippines say did you know the name Philippines was taken off a dead Spanish dictator, Philip II 1556-1598? Ya whatever dude.
Spanish rule had two lasting effects on Philippine society; the near universal conversion of the population to Roman Catholicism and the creation of a landed elite.
All the land was in the hands of a few people. Hmmm that sounds so familiar. Where have I heard of simular situations which ended up causing generation after generation of strife and misery? Yes well on one glaring example is jumping to mind, so I'll let you take your pick.

We were only in conflict with Spain and the Philippinos (who were pissed off for being named after a Euro inbred, and who could blaim then?) for three years total. Spanish-American War / War of Philippine Independence 1898 - 1901

We didn't want to take possession of prince Philip's Island of malcontents, But the French helped (themselves mostly, as usual) with the Spanish American war peace treaty.
The declared war aim of the United States was Cuban independence from Spain. This was soon accomplished. The American forces landed in Cuba on June 23 and, with the surrender of Santiago on July 16, the Spanish sued for peace through the French ambassador in Washington two days later. Events in the Cuban theatre were concluded in less than a month.
One of the many times we went to war without the French accordian. Unfortunately the Philippines drug feet, allowing the Frogs to hatch some underhanded backstabbing plots.

The United States had not expressed an interest in taking over the remnants of Spain's colonial empire. On news of Dewey's victory, warships began arriving in Manila Bay from Britain, France, Japan and Germany. The German fleet of eight warships was especially aggressive and menacing. All of these imperial powers had recently obtained concessions from China for naval bases and designated commercial spheres of interest. American interests had reason to fear that leaving the Philippines to the designs of the imperial powers might exclude the United States from the Asia-Pacific trade altogether.
If France ever does something righteous by accident be sure and let me know.

By late July, 12,000 American troops had arrived from San Francisco. The Spanish governor, Fermin Jaudenes, negotiated the surrender of Manila with an arranged show of resistance that preserved Spanish sensibilities of honour and excluded Aguinaldo's Filipinos. The Americans took possession of Manila on August 13, 1898.

We didn't want it and Spain didn't want to keep it. but you Euro fuckwads wouldn't let it alone.

The 14th of July is called "Bastille Day" in English speaking counties, not in France, where it is known as "Fête nationale".
When discussed in Parliament at the beginnings of the Third Republic in the 1870/1880s ( I have not got the exact date at hand) the 14/07/1789 was rejected for the very reasons you have developped here. The Deputés and Senateurs compromised and reached an agreement on celebrating the "Fête de la Fédération", on 14/07/1790, when delegations from all the provinces of France and Navarre gave up their particular laws and rights and created one united nation (une et indivisible) called France. The King of France and Navarre became "Roi des Français".
There was a great celebration on the Champ de Mars and Talleyrand said the mass (that's for the comic side : he said in a low voice "Don't make me laugh"). The Eiffel Tower was built on that ground a century later.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that with about 4,000 troops, France is the third-largest contributor to NATO operations, after Germany and Italy and ahead of the United States (3,000).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the 70,000 troops in Germant were a NATO commitment?

It's only the southeast of the country, which, by the way, France financed in its racist civil war to keep blacks enslaved.

blah blah blah... Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Japanese internment camps? Segregation? (slavery is too easy). Black Americans were free to enter any restaurant, publish any book or play in any jazz club in Paris long before you realized it was "cool" to do so.

You people are the REAL reason the entire planet hates the West, and I can't blame them.

You mean "America" and its tendency to prop up dictators then bombing the shit out their population? Vietnam? Cammbodia? etc...

If I were dominated by France at any time in the past, it would make me spiteful and unproductive as well.

Ah yes... same with African-American blaming whities like you for all their social ills? Do they have a point?

Of course, Mexico was able to liberate itself from the croissant-eating, cowboy-phobic French, a day I celebrate every Cinco de Mayo in San Diego.

Of course you do not know that Cinquo De Mayo is a minor celebration in Mexico, September 16 is. Just an opportunity for you to drink cheap "Corona" beers (I've been to Cancun, you can always spot your type) and puke all over your girlfriend.

And why don't you blame the French for your massive illegal immigration from Mexico while you are at it?

The question is why celebrate the storming of the Bastille?

"Bastille Day" is a purely American term, not a French one. You're at least right in saying it was a non-event. The real celebration is, like Dumbya would say, Freedum . Are you "jaleous of our Freedum?

Nope Zuumurcs

Never have I been the jellous person really in regards to the Francsaise elocution because we all realize that it is helpful no? When you see someone heading for disaster that a ten paragraph essay is much to be prefered over a simple one word sentence STOP.

Can you translate in simple English?

Since oh humidor I like that!

Has there been some report of the three Frenchmen and their two girlfriends kidnapped in palestine?
Palestinian security officials said the kidnappers were Palestinian policemen who had recently been fired from their jobs.

Oh shit dude! Disgraced and disgruntled Muslim policemen. Thats got to be the worst type of person to have as a kidnapper.
THink positive dude! Like maybe they were drummed off the force for being too kind and loving to foreigners.

The bushies here have too much time on their hands, our growing WalMart economy must have left them behind...

Ad Hominim attack kittens, what will pierre throw at us next?

'our growing WalMart economy must have left them behind'

Yeah that's it. Were you really proud when your wrote this post? What is wrong with working class people being able to buy products at a decent price? Explain it to me.

Zoomer, was it that the US armed Iraq with CW, or that WMD have not been found?

Sadly, the poster "it's jake" doesn't know anything about Mexican History.

France conquered Mexico one year AFTER Cinqo de Mayo. The Mexicans won the battle, but they lost the war. They came back in 1863 and goose stepped through Mexico City and stayed for 4 years until wars in Europe forced them to withdraw troops. There was no surrender (just like the US never surrendered in Vietnam), but a withdrawal. The Austrian monarch left behind claimed to be a Mexican patriot at the time of his execution.