France was pretty heavily anti-semitic in the 19th century - especially Fin-de-siècle. It was so strong that such sentiments made it itno history museums in displays and paintings. Pretty bad. Anyway, the anti-semitism resurgence is minor in comparison...but it is still scary. Again, this seems to be going on a bit in much of Europe. No Worries, Lol, you are probably right.
I'll readily admit I'm partisan...you're not, Achebe?? Do you honestly think "you're above" this discussion? Learn some modesty, Achebe, or admit you're a snot. Your arrogance here isn't cute...we're not all convinced you're smarter than us. Thanks, though, dad, for checking in on us kids. Having said that...if I read articles from conservative law professors defending Reagan by ultimately saying "oaths mean nothing" I'd have the same concerns I have for this very liberal law professor (one I had the pleasure of knowing in my 3 years of law school) defending Clinton.
I didn't care for Regan (Don or Dan, I think) either. I wonder how many of those paying so much attention to anti-Semitic history in France impacting contemporary France think our history concerning slavery, Indian wars, and quarrels with Mexico/Spain no longer have ANY influence on contemporary America.
do you read 'words' very often MadMax? I conceded that I'm a partisan. If you concede that you're a partisan too, then why have these conversations? Don't you realize the path of your argument? When you write 'Thanks Bill', indicting him for a lie under oath, immediately after having conceded that Reagan lied too... (w/o the complimentary indictment) then you come across as a moron. Since I know that you are not a moron, I instead write it off as to a zealot that's driving home a point. You don't like Clinton, whoopee. I don't drink soda. Whoopee. Tastes. That's the way all political arguments seem to me now. A bunch of emotive rhetoric, in which people beg the question to arise as to what they 'already knew'. Let's just stare at the pretty pictures rimbaud has provided for us. Otherwise, we're both engaging in mental masturbation, with the occassional comments "I like blue".
Blue?? And to think I thought you were an intelligent poster. How can you side with blue after all the deceitful, duplicitous things that color has done?? Clearly green is the superior color and anyone who's made it past the third grade would agree.
Hmmm.... you've challenged me; I... I think I must be open minded, TADDAA. I've done it!!! I've been compelled by reason!!! Green is obviously the better color. but then again, bullwinkle brown has something going on. We should defer to the true authority: rambo. Rambo, in one of my freethinking moments, I had arisen to the conclusion that blue is a great color. I fear that this may lead me down a path in which I grant the other side some foothold, and I may expose flaws in egalitarianism by not having followed the party's premeditated line. What does the party say about blue, and what should I convey in my future arguments about this color? The party is gracious and very tolerant. All hail the party.
heb you are showing pure genius in this thread. Defering to me is always a good thing. Don't listen to that liberal plant-eating philistine Mrs JB, either. You were correct in your brief moment of lucidity - blue is a wonderful color. However, all colors are wonderful. Mrs JB has no basis for presenting a valid opinion. If we listen to Hume (and don't we all) we know that only the ideal critic should be telling peope what is aesthetically pleasing...I am that ideal critic. So I say they all are good. If anyone thinks otherwise it is because they are too ignorant to understand. Joseph Beuys, "I like America and America likes me": Odilon Redon, "The Crying Spider": Marcel Duchamp, "Nude Descending a Staircase":
That is wierd and down right un-American. You should consider moving to Europe where I hear soda is not that popular. They do drink mineral water "with gas" there, which may be the wierdest of all.
France's historical anti-semitism has nothing to do with contemporary thought. Anyone who says tht has no understanding of both France's history (ans the underlying reasons of previous anti-semitism) and general world historical progression over the last 100 years. Similar to "impacting" having nothing to do with the traditional "impact" since the former has never been used as a verb until it crept into business jargon within the last 15 years. edit: No Worries - I don't drink soda, either...but to make it worse, I drink mineral water "with gas" here (in the US). Man, I feel dirty.
Until you see people in America doing the EXACT same thing to the affected people as they did in the 1700s, then you're little analogy is an irrelevant red herring. The acts of anti-Semitism in France are not due to some watered down historical influence. They are the EXACT SAME types of acts that occurred in history. The anti-Semitism, as has been theorized, never dissapated. It simply lied dormant until recent years. I doubt you have actually researched the problem well enough to determine the difference.
I haven't researched French anti-Semitism--but it sounds like Rimbaud is pretty familiar with the issues if you want to talk to him about it. I can assume from the above post you believe the influence of slavery, Indian wars, and conflicts with Mexico/Spain no longer play any role in many current Amercan's thoughts and views towards other groups. If this assumption is correct, then you need to do some research on your own country before examining others. If this isn't your assumption, and you recognize those events still affect contempary America in various ways, then we have no debate here.
Refman may or may not agree with your assumption, but you cannot draw that inference from what he said. He point is that France has a history of anti-semitism, and it is now recurring. He was saying that slavery, etc. are not analogous since they are not recurring in the US. Wouldn't you say 'influence from past actions' differs greatly from 'actions in the present'?
There are certainly fringe groups and fringe individuals in the US whose actions (threats, intimidation, violence--Byrd case) and beliefs are quite similar to those from the era's I speak of. I don't want to get into this because I think the overall "influence from past actions" on many Americans is far more important than the relatively few cases of current actions by America that blatantly fit the mold of actions (e.g., lynching) more common place from previous eras. So first, what happened before in our country that I spoke to does reoccur. There is still violence and murder of Americans because of their skin color, religion and practices (which fits your contention Cohen), but to solely focus on them is misguided IMO. Because by doing so it is far easier to denounce these relatively few blatant horrible cases as reflecting a few bad apples (as I would bet the vast majority of French do with their blatant anti-Semits) than deal with the larger impact on American's psyche from our history and past actions that play out in more everyday realities for many people. I'll leave it to someone with a great deal of knowledge about anti-Semitic actions and underlying beliefs in the French to discuss the depth of the problem there, but America has its own issues that reflect in recurrent actions and underlying beliefs as well (including anti-Semitism, though it may not be to the scope of what it once was or the scope of other prejudices). I think as Americans we would be better served spending at least as much time making sure we are addressing our own prejudiced beliefs and actions as we do pointing fingers at other nations’ peoples, it is so much easier to see it in others and point it out than to do so for ourselves.
MadMax, don't mess with Achebe. If you're educated in his postings, you'd know that 1) he's VERY smart, so don't even try to debate him, 2) he's a "tough guy" who will not hesitate to try to kick your ass if you make him mad, and 3) he's got a TON of money, so even if he's not the academia street thug he poses as on the BBS, he can just as easily pay someone to beat you up, and if he's found out, can just hire some high-priced lawyer to get him off. I've already said too much. Max, you've been warned.
