The hatred continues...

[kitchen_kink]

...and I grow confused.

I walk across the street today to get some lunch at a different sandwich place and thus debate the relative merits of a $6.75 roast beef and a $4.95 baked haddock. (I work in Back Bay.) On the sidewalk are four or five people gearing up for a protest; all are dark-brown skinned and snappily dressed. I peer at the banner on which a man is putting the finishing touches, and see that it says, "Chirac Supports Terrorism."

I sigh, shake my head, and feel at least relieved that this apparent pro-war anti-France rally is small. Soon outside the sandwich shop a few more people join with crudely handwritten signs and leaflets, shouting, "France is the weakest country in the world! The weakest!" and "No more French wine! No more French cheese!" (You're talking to the wrong girl, folks.)

Then I see that the signs are about French imperialism in Cote d'Ivoire.

It is here that I become paralyzed. I am all for a protest against imperialism, and for the Europeans to get out of Africa. I don't know much about the Ivory Coast in particular, (though I've been doing a little Internet research as I write this) but I can guess that horrible things go on there just as they have been and continue to in other parts of the war-torn, post-colonial continent. [Edit: Essentially France is doing in the Ivory Coast what we're doing in Iraq--trying to impose peace using military force in order to protect their economic interests. Operation Unicorn?? By the way, has anyone heard anything about this in American media??]

I am very, very sad, however, that these no-doubt well-intentioned protesters have chosen to pitch their case in the ill-fitting parlance of Bushie France-haters.

Amid the horrors that have been coming one upon the other day by day, both abroad in this unjust war and domestically as our civil rights are stripped, nothing has given me quite so much pause (or made me want to move to Canada more) than the absurd reaction to France's intention to veto the second UN resolution. That the men and women who are supposed to represent me in this goddess-forsaken government would be able to pass a resolution changing the name of America's favorite heartattack snack makes me physically ill, and besides ridicules the entire idea of a boycott, seeing as French fries aren't even fucking French. I knew I was being ruled by idiots and warmongers; I was reasonably sure until that moment that they weren't all entirely insane.

So when a small group of African protestors in Boston propose a boycott on French products, and call Chirac's actions support of "terrorism," while calling attention to something terrible that Chirac really is doing...well, I feel disgusted.

What is the message here, anyway? "Hey Mr. Bush, you should be bombing France?" The same sentiment that hicks all across America had a few weeks ago in response to Chirac's brave stance against an unjust war? Why choose now to have this protest, when it will be lost in the shuffle of the peace movement? It can only be because they want to ride the coattails of anti-French sentiment.

But those who currently hate the French for their recent stance in the UN likely couldn't care less about what's going on in the Ivory Coast. And obviously, neither could Mr. Bush, terrorists or no terrorists. It is perhaps a clever tactic on these protestors' parts to try to raise awareness during this particular time. But the methodology is highly suspect, and the audience, likely, deaf.

Off do research this more. [Thanks, crap American media.]

Comments

American media attention on Cote d'Ivoire

[jasonkelly.livejournal.com]

The Cote d'Ivoire was getting some small amount of attention in the 'World' sections of news services, but I think that the Iraq invasion has pushed it, and a number of other international items, farther off the radar.

The situations are a little less analogous than you made them seem, I think, while colonialism is certainly important to the understanding of both situations. For one thing the government of the Cote d'Ivoire specifically asked for French military support, if I recall correctly.

Frenchie

[crownedclown.livejournal.com]

Yes. Please hate the French to support your government. Silly, isn't it? Unfortunately it can be very effective as well, rousing the "spear carriers" (Thank you Mr. Vidal) to engage in some sort of fiscal strangle hold on whoever, in this case the French wine and cheese producers. Kind of makes you think the world is one large playground for these folks, the Bushes and the like...Oh, wait. The world is one large playground for these folks. I know very little about what is going on in Cote d'Ivoire, but if anyone separates me from French wine and cheese over this nonsense I am definitely moving. French wine and cheese are reasons life can be so freakin great for crying out loud. But terrorism? The French? Ha! I support terrorism to, actually. I pay taxes and (gasp) have been known to smoke weed. You do understand that all the profits from marijuana go to support terrorism, don't you? Don't you?

intersting and quite concerning

[sanghasong.livejournal.com]

since i haven't lived there for 13 years i am really not properly qualified to speak, but it *seems* like american patriotism has morphed into nationalism without too many people noticing.

nice to see some people notice.

[hawver.livejournal.com]

I feel the same way about the anti-war protesters as you do about the anti-imperialism crowd. Basically the blatant non-intellectual nature of the protests (Bush is stupid, war is bad) infuriates me to no end. There are a wealth of serious intellectual issues that can be raised to protest the war, yet no one seems interested in the slightest in saying anything of substance.

Methinks we protest to much

[crownedclown.livejournal.com]

Somewhere in The Satanic Verses there are a couple of guys on there way to a protest. One, not enthused, goes along, while the other, quite enthusiastic says, "I just want to see how a group of allegedly intelligent people turn themselves into a mob". I have no problem with protests, but I wonder how much good they do. They seem to require a dumbing down of the participants. Blowing your horn never struck me as a great way to "raise awareness" but sending your Congressman a check gets a phone call returned. C'est la vie.

[dda.livejournal.com]

It is hard to put a serious intellectual message on a placard. Given the "sound bite" nature of the media now, anything that requires any thought won't get through. And it is very hard to get a mob to agree on anything other than the very basic stuff (War is bad, Bush is stupid :-).

It really bothers me that any serious intellectual debate about the merits of this war didn't seem to happen in advance. We got rhetoric and slogans from the get-go; "Axis of evil" doesn't really leave much room for intellectual debate. :-(

saying anything of substance

[cos]

There are a wealth of serious intellectual issues that can be raised to protest the war, yet no one seems interested in the slightest in saying anything of substance.

No one? Where have you been looking? On the little signs people carry at protests? You expect to find substantial issues in ten words or less?
(Well, sometimes you might)

Senator Robert Byrd:

October 3: Rush to War Ignores Constitution

October 10: A Preordained Course of Action

March 19: The Arrogance of Power
... and all four February speeches

Presidential Candidate Howard Dean:

Foreign Policy Address

Linn County Democratic Dinner

Address to Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting

Other Politicans, Diplomants, and Policy experts:
Dalyell: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,922572,00.html
Robin Cook: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
Norman Mailer: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16166
Kiesling: http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml
Rep. Stark: http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/10/stark/

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18TUE1.html
http://nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20THU1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

Elsewhere in the Press:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45508-2003Feb21.html
http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc1359.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/21/willing/
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030324&s=trb032403
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/5434358.htm

Me, and others, on LiveJournal:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/pro_war_liberal/2397.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dr_memory/33283.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dietrich/64062.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/yehoshua/23240.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/maradydd/114260.html?thread=352084#t352084

[Just what I was able to throw together in 15 minutes, I have to go now...]

Re: saying anything of substance

[amadea.livejournal.com]

*giggles*
you're off the hook.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

I'm not in favor of this jingoistic anti-French craze. However, that does not make me think the French state is significantly less evil than any other state. (Nothing against the cheese and wine of course ;)
Unfortunately, rational people who can keep a sense of perspective, not only can't influence events, they can't even get their message noticed. The opposing sides both like to squeeze out any reasonable opinion, because it is reason itself that is the real threat to their sick political ambitions.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

(no, you don't know me; stumbled here by accident during a boring day at work)

I don't know much about the Ivory Coast in particular, (though I've been doing a little Internet research as I write this) but I can guess that horrible things go on there just as they have been and continue to in other parts of the war-torn, post-colonial continent. [Edit: Essentially France is doing in the Ivory Coast what we're doing in Iraq--trying to impose peace using military force in order to protect their economic interests.]

I do know a little about the Ivory Coast -- spent a couple of weeks backpacking through there, some years ago -- and have kept my eye on things there since -- and I'm not sure that what you wrote is an entirely accurate description.

Briefly, up until very recently, Cote d'Ivoire was one of Africa's few success stories, stable and relatively wealthy, with a capital city more like Paris than Lagos. It's still Africa, but miles and _miles_ better than its neighbours to the north and west, again until very recently.

You could argue that France is trying to protect their strategic interest in West Africa, I suppose, but not their economic interests, since nobody has any economic interest in the Ivory Coast. Their only real exports are cocoa and lumber, which are widely available elsewhere and not particularly heavily used in France. I think it's more likely that the French feel a certain patriarchal (and I'm deliberately using a word so heavy with connotation) responsibility towards a former colony and are genuinely trying to establish stability there. They only stepped in after a civil war nasty even by African standards began.

(And while horrible things do go on through much of Africa, it's a bit unfair to tar the whole continent with one bloody brush.)

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this input!

I don't pretend to be making any really well-informed assertions about Africa--I know grievously little about it. So it's good to hear comments from someone who's actually been there.

I'm curious about the use of 'success story' here. Should we assume that because a place has been successfully Westernized that it is, in fact, a success? It's true, once a country has been colonized by a Western nation, the best we can hope for, it seems, is that the colonization doesn't completely devastate the occupied country. So a certain amount of capitalist wealth and sophistication can, I suppose, be called 'success.' However, something to think about.

(And while horrible things do go on through much of Africa, it's a bit unfair to tar the whole continent with one bloody brush.)

True. But as I said, 'other places in Africa,' not 'all places in Africa.'

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Actually I meant "success" in a far more basic sense of "thirty years with no organized violence, no mass famine, and hardly any political prisoners." Although it's worth noting that the Ivoirians were proud of and grateful for their relative wealth and sophistication, and...

...and, well, I have about 50 pages' worth of strong and often contradictory opinions on Africa and colonialism, and I won't bore you to tears by inflicting them all on you; let me just say it's a very complex subject and the more I think about it the more conflicted I get. I've written a whole novel which is semi-allegorically about Africa and I feel like I've only just scratched the surface.

True. But as I said, 'other places in Africa,' not 'all places in Africa.'

So you did. I withdraw my misinterpretation.