Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

The article is a fascinating interview with a French Philosopher by the name of Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL for short).  I had to do some research to find out if this guy was for real, or just a put up as he says somethings unheard of about America, from a Frenchman!

The author claims that BHL is one of only 7 Leading Frenchmen (there are no women) that do not hate America, and if this interview is any indication, it is apparent that he does not hate America, he just does not like all things American.  But what was most fascinating about the article was on his take of the roots of the French animosity towards America.  I have seen others sniping around the edges before, but he puts a whole new slant on it, and claims that not only did the animosity not start with the French Left, but with the right!  And why?  Jealousy!  Of what?

"In France, with the nation based on roots, on the idea of soil, on a common memory . . . the very existence of America is a mystery and a scandal." This is a particular source of pain, Mr. Lévy says, for "the right." Contrary to what is thought generally, he insists, anti-Americanism "migrated to the left, to the Communist Party, but its origins are on the extreme right." America gives the French right "nightmares," as the country is based on "a social contract. America proves that people can gather at a given moment and decide to form a nation, even if they come from different places." The "ghost that has haunted Europe for two centuries"--and which gives fuel, to this day, to anti-Americanism there--"is America's coming together as an act of will, of creed. It shows that there is an alternative to organic nations."

Yes, the French are Jealous of America for doing something heretofore never done before and only once since (he equates the creation of Israel to the same creed).  While France tries to lay claim to the first secular democratic state in modern times (we will forgo the argument of Ancient Greece), the simple fact that a nation was born not of a common heritage, but a common creed is unfathomable to the French, and something that most European nations tried to do by force for hundreds of years (only ending in the 90s with the fall of the USSR).

In other words, the very existence of the European Union is an attempt to duplicate what America did 230 years ago (and so far has been unsuccessful in accomplishing).

I found the whole article and his insights into America to be a fascinating read, and intend to check out some of his books to see what other insights he has.  But to discuss America in a calm and rational manner like that is truly what sets him apart from many of the detractors of this nation on the continent. 

He clearly states he is a leftist, and that he looked for the ultimate revolution to bring out the leftist utopia.  In another very revealing thought, he says the death of the left was not with the fall of the Soviet Union, but with the Cambodian Revolution.  For as he indicates, it was the first time that they revolution had "gone far enough", and the results are now readily apparent to all mankind.

That event seems to be a defining moment for him, when he turned from the far left of communism to a more moderating path of socialist.

All in all, it was a great read, and one I really enjoyed.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 24, 2006
Why does he think the US was born of a common creed and not a common heritage? I thought the early US republic extended its protection and suffrage only to white, European and preferably English-speaking men with property? Considering how culturally diverse France was at the birth of its republic I doubt it was much different, diversity-wise.
on Jan 24, 2006
Excellent and thought-provoking article. Thanks, Dr. Guy for posting it.

France's roots, indeed its very name, comes from the Franks, a specific tribe. America is different, having roots in many groups that migrated to America. America was settled by the Dutch, French, English, Germans, Irish and Spaniards more or less simultaneously. I was surprised to learn that the first Jews came to America over 350 years ago; I always thought that the Jewish migration to America was much later.

However, I think that BHL is repressing the real reason for France's animosity toward America and all things American. America's ascendency as a world power mirrors France's decline. Examples abound. World Wars I and II, the Monroe Doctrine, French Indo-china (aka Vietnam) come to mind. France is no longer a military, cultural or economic force of the first magnitude.

French antipathy towards America first became apparent during Vietnam. They criticized America for fighting a war that they themselves had fought, against the same enemy. Today the French criticize America for being involved in the Middle East, when there were French troops there until the 1960's. It is natural, not necessarily right mind you, but natural, to resent those who might succeed where the French failed.
on Jan 24, 2006

Why does he think the US was born of a common creed and not a common heritage? I thought the early US republic extended its protection and suffrage only to white, European and preferably English-speaking men with property? Considering how culturally diverse France was at the birth of its republic I doubt it was much different, diversity-wise.

In today's venue, you would be correct.  But even then, it was a very diverse group.  Made up of many nationalities,  Granted not all. But still many.  Canada has tried it, and failed.  Other than Israel, which had a common religion,who has or tried?

America is not perfect, but it did a damn good job for a first start.  That is what he is saying,and that is what impresses me about it.  He sees the good through the thorns.

on Jan 24, 2006

However, I think that BHL is repressing the real reason for France's animosity toward America and all things American. America's ascendency as a world power mirrors France's decline.

This is true, but their antipathy towards us and even their bragging rights to the first democracy belies the indochina war.  That may have been the last straw, but it was not the first.  indeed, the only reason the war of 1812 was between England and the US was that they grabbed more of our seamen due to the language issue.

This is indeed's one man's opinion.  But I found it perceptive and enlightening.  yea he may be a fruitcake, but as he is 180 degrees opposed to the US politically, I tend to at least allow him the benifit of the doubt.

on Jan 24, 2006
Very good article, Doc. Thank you for posting it.

I think that America's founding happened not with a "common creed" or "heritage", but rather with a common enemy.
Most of the Colonists were properly scandalized and outraged by The Crown's actions here, and further by the actions taken in its name by the British Army. We got tired of it and took some action of our own.

There have been too many diverse socio-political agendas throughout the history of Europe for the nations to ever be truly united as one.
The closest they ever came (at least within living memory) was in the alliance of powers against Germany in the wars. And still they needed us to hold them all together and bring it to a proper close.
NATO was a good try, too, really, but those pesky agendas kept coming up.
on Jan 25, 2006

I think that America's founding happened not with a "common creed" or "heritage", but rather with a common enemy.
Most of the Colonists were properly scandalized and outraged by The Crown's actions here, and further by the actions taken in its name by the British Army. We got tired of it and took some action of our own.

Wether it was common creed or common enemy, what BHL is saying is that it is so foreign to these cliques of common heritage as to be actually threatening.  It would be like France and Germany willingly uniting to form a new nation.

The only other example I can think of that comes close to the US is Canada, and they really made a mess of it with Quebec.

on Jan 25, 2006
Hello, all. I haven't been here in so long, I forgot my login information.

Why does he think the US was born of a common creed and not a common heritage? I thought the early US republic extended its protection and suffrage only to white, European and preferably English-speaking men with property?


In today's venue, you would be correct. But even then, it was a very diverse group. Made up of many nationalities, Granted not all. But still many.

From A Century of Population Growth by William Rossiter:

United States - 1790

English & Welsh 2,605,699 66.3%
Scottish/ Scots-Irish 221,562 5.6%
German 176,407 4.5%
Dutch 78,959 2.0%
Irish 61,534 1.6%
French 17,619 0.4%
Other Whites 10,664 0.3%
Black (Slave & Free) 757,181 19.3%


BTW, I'm not sure that voting was limited only to English speakers.
on Jan 25, 2006

BTW, I'm not sure that voting was limited only to English speakers.

It was not.  About the only limitations at the time was gender.  There were many native americans, Free blacks and others who were citizens in good standing and voted.

on Jan 26, 2006
I dont know all that much but hopefully to add some info, Australia's democracy was formed without a civil war a federation of states.
We managed it although it was deeply opposed by the british of the time who stalled it (yes we needed their permission) and yes we are democratic .

But really we are too laid back to care it seems, it makes me proud however.
on Jan 26, 2006

I dont know all that much but hopefully to add some info, Australia's democracy was formed without a civil war a federation of states.
We managed it although it was deeply opposed by the british of the time who stalled it (yes we needed their permission) and yes we are democratic .

But really we are too laid back to care it seems, it makes me proud however.

I will be honest, and say I dont know enough about Australian independance, and you may be right for it to be another example.  I dont know how differentiated the people were in Australia, like in America (with virtually every european nation represented along with Africa), when the independence was acclaimed.

But closer to home, we see Canada that is trying, and failing to mimic the American example (they cannot integrate Quebec into the over all picture). 

on Jan 26, 2006
France's roots, indeed its very name, comes from the Franks, a specific tribe.


From what I've been told, France's people descend mostly from Celtic Gauls and Mediterranean people with a touch of Germanic Franks in the North. The Franks would conquer that country and organize it into a political and national entity.

America is different, having roots in many groups that migrated to America. America was settled by the Dutch, French, English, Germans, Irish and Spaniards more or less simultaneously. I was surprised to learn that the first Jews came to America over 350 years ago; I always thought that the Jewish migration to America was much later.


America, was a land of diverse people, but it was still overwhelmingly an Anglo-Protestant nation.

I'm no expert on American history, by any means, but I do remember reading that there were handfuls of Jews who emigrated to the colonies in the early days (1600's). I wouldn't be surprised if there were a handful of every European ethnic group at that time in America. Jews did not emigrate to America in larger numbers until the late 1800's, though.
on Jan 26, 2006

America, was a land of diverse people, but it was still overwhelmingly an Anglo-Protestant nation.

I'm no expert on American history, by any means, but I do remember reading that there were handfuls of Jews who emigrated to the colonies in the early days (1600's). I wouldn't be surprised if there were a handful of every European ethnic group at that time in America. Jews did not emigrate to America in larger numbers until the late 1800's, though.

WASP. And you are correct.  However, Pennsylvania was made up of a lot of Dutch and Germans, NY, Dutch, Georgia, Convicts, Maryland, Catholics, Mass. - Pilgrims originally from England but recent from The Netherlands.

Plus you did have a strong influx of Europeans so while it was majority WASP, it was by no means homogenously so. 

And while there was not a mass Jewish migration until the late 19th century, there were still some here and fairly well accepted as early as the mid 17th century.

on Jan 26, 2006
And while there was not a mass Jewish migration until the late 19th century, there were still some here and fairly well accepted as early as the mid 17th century.
---DrGuy

Yeah....Al Hamilton probably had a couple on staff when he set up our monetray system. Heh-heh. Ethnic humor. Gotta luv it. Go Steelers!
on Jan 26, 2006

Yeah....Al Hamilton probably had a couple on staff when he set up our monetray system. Heh-heh. Ethnic humor. Gotta luv it. Go Steelers!

You are going to torment me aren't  you?  You want me to root for the seahawks?

You are evil!  EVIL!

See if I cut you any slack when we get a real coach!  {bronx rasberry}

on Apr 26, 2006
Very good site! I like it! Thanks!
2 Pages1 2