PLANK OCTOBER 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Is your president a socialist who has repeatedly apologized for his country? If you are an American, the answer to this question is no, despite apoplectic Republican claims to the contrary. If you are French, however, it is most certainly yes. Not only is President François Hollande a proud Socialist; this year he has made two high-profile apologies for France. This summer, on the seventieth anniversary of the notorious “vel d’Hiv” roundup of Jews in Paris. he gave a speech acknowledging the country’s guilt in the deportation of Jews to Nazi death camps, And this past week, he ended official denials that the Parisian police had carried out a massacre of Algerian protestors in 1961, and paid homage to the victims. The two statements say a great deal about French public life today, about the country’s relation to its history, and about its widening differences from the United States.
Both of the incidents for which Hollande apologized, in the name of the French Republic, were long hidden from sight. After the liberation of France in 1944, a battered and demoralized population consoled itself with the myth that all but a few traitors and criminals had resisted the Nazi occupation. The deportation of some 76,000 Jews to the death camps was blamed on the Germans. Only slowly, and in large part thanks to the effort of North American historians (especially Robert Paxton of Columbia) did the full sordid story emerge in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of the French had in fact supported the collaborationist government of Marshal Philippe Pétain for several years. Many had applauded, enthusiastically, anti-Semitic policies modeled on those of the Nazis. And while it was the Germans who demanded the deportation of Jews from France, the job of identifying, arresting and transporting these Jews was carried out entirely by French authorities, including the horrific, days-long incarceration of 13,000 Jews in the “Vel d’Hiv”—an indoor bicycle racetrack—without adequate food, water or ventilation.
The 1961 massacre similarly remained, for decades, occluded in French public memory. It took place in the final stages of Algeria’s violent struggle for independence against France, after thousands of Algerians living in Paris staged demonstrations in violation of a curfew imposed on them by the Prefect of Police, Maurice Papon. Papon allowed his forces to disperse them with wanton brutality. The police itself gave an official death toll of three, but in fact, as many as 200 Algerians were shot, beaten or trampled to death, with some of their bodies thrown into the Seine River. It took nearly thirty years for French historians to bring these facts to light, and the exact numbers remain hotly debated. This reckoning has been closely linked to the reckoning with Vichy, in part because one of the officials who had organized the deportation of French Jews, only to move unscathed into a brilliant post-war career, was none other than Maurice Papon. Even as the historians revealed his role in the massacre, the French state finally decided to prosecute him for his wartime crimes (convicted in 1998, he died nine years later).
François Hollande is not the first French head of state to apologize for his country’s role in the Holocaust. In 1995, President Jacques Chirac made a moving statement acknowledging France’s guilt. “That day,” he said of the Vel d’Hiv roundup, “France committed the irreparable.” But Hollande spoke at much greater length, and even more emphatically. “The truth is,” he said, “that this crime was committed in France, by France.” And neither Chirac nor his successor Nicolas Sarkozy ever acknowledged responsibility for the 1961 massacre.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
Apologies for acts committed on French soil, against French citizens and residents, are not exactly the same as President Obama’s supposed apologies to foreign countries. Yet Hollande clearly has no intention of ruling out further possible recognition of French misconduct. “There cannot be, and there will not be lost memory under the Republic,” he stated in the Vel d’Hiv speech. It is a remarkable line, implying that the Republic must take responsibility for all the crimes committed under its authority. Move far enough back in history, and the list grows very long, including especially the killings, expropriations, and attendant barbarities that accompanied both the creation of France’s large colonial empire in the nineteenth century, and that empire’s traumatic, violent dissolution in the twentieth. Like virtually every other country on earth, France has a lot to apologize for.
Hollande’s speech in fact illustrates a remarkable shift in a country that helped invent modern nationalism in the age of revolutions, and that long had a well-deserved reputation for national chauvinism (a word that the French themselves invented in the early nineteenth century—it comes from a music-hall character of a patriotic Napoleonic soldier named Chauvin). Not only has France apologized for some past actions, it has also stopped boasting of others. in 2005, the government of Jacques Chirac quietly but firmly refused to mark in any but the most restrained way the bicentennial of the Battle of Austerlitz—arguably, the greatest French military victory of all time, carried out by Napoleon Bonaparte against Austria and Russia. Modern France, it was explained, had no business celebrating a bloodbath carried out by a repressive, undemocratic ruler as part of a campaign of naked imperial expansionism.
In the United States, sentiments of this sort, apropos of the darker episodes in American history, are anything but uncommon in university classrooms. In politics, however, they have become virtually taboo. In the civil rights era, American politicians could speak frankly and eloquently about the ways that slavery and institutionalized racism stained the American past. In the 1980’s, Congress could pass legislation acknowledging the wrong of Japanese-American interment during World War II, and granting compensation to its victims. But in the past quarter-century, conservatives have successfully cast any attempt to discuss the country’s historical record impartially in the political realm as a species of heresy—“blaming America first,” as Jeanne Kirkpatrick put it as far back as 1984. A turning point of sorts came in 1994, when the Smithsonian Institution planned an exhibit of the aircraft that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, accompanied by material that highlighted the human toll of the bombing, inviting debate on its morality. The outcry from conservatives and veterans groups was deafening, and few politicians dared to defend the Smithsonian, which eventually canceled the exhibit.
It would be wrong to say that the French have moved away from sentiments of patriotism and national pride. But the country’s cultural and political elites now tend, overwhelmingly, to phrase their patriotism in terms of “ideals” and “values” to which, they readily admit, the country has often failed to live up. President Hollande’s Vel d’Hiv speech expressed this sentiment perfectly. If the crime was committed “in France, by France,” it was also committed “against France, against its principles and its values and its ideal.” High among the qualities generally cited in this connection are a commitment to peace, to international cooperation, and to cultural toleration, as befits men and women who envision their country as a hub in an ever-more-integrated global economy, and as a part of an ever more closely-knit European Union. Both of France’s major political parties, Hollande’s Socialists and Sarkozy’s UMP, embrace this stance of “openness” to the world (as the political scientist Sophie Meunier phrases it). It only finds real opposition among the anti-capitalist radicals of the far left, and the reactionary nationalists of the far right. And openness to the world tends to prompt the rejection of narrowly chauvinist national pride, and a readiness to admit one’s own country’s faults and crimes.
True, an important current within the UMP has called, as Nicolas Sarkozy put it upon his election in 2007, to “have done with repentance” (he called it a “form of self-hatred”). The party, after all, traces its descent back to that supreme exponent of French national pride, Charles de Gaulle. In 2005, disgusted with the emphasis on the dark side of French imperialism in school curricula, UMP deputies successfully sponsored a measure demanding that schools teach “the positive role” of French colonialism. This summer, some in the party attacked Hollande for the broad language of his Vel d’Hiv speech, arguing that Vichy did not stand for all of France (de Gaulle himself, of course, rejected Pétain’s authority and proclaimed his own government in exile). This week, others accused Hollande of undermining the authority of the police by his statement on the 1961 massacre.
Yet in practice, denunciations of “apology” play much less well in France than in the United States. The 2005 schools measure was widely ridiculed and soon repealed. François Hollande promised to recognize the 1961 massacre during the presidential campaign last year, and still handily defeated Sarkozy, who did not use the issue against him. Defenders of Hollande’s Vel d’Hiv speech have pointed out that the new President was following the precedent laid down by a previous apologist-in-chief, the UMP’s Chirac. And anyone who strikes an overly contentious nationalist pose in French politics risks association with the far-right National Front, whose founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has predictably denounced Hollande, declaring that only God has the authority to recognize French guilt or innocence.
In France, in short, apologizing for your country can be good politics. It is in America where being a politician means never being able to say you’re sorry.
55 comments
USA! USA! USA! (aka subtle nuanced reflection on American history and complicity in some less than virtuous episodes)
- ironyroad
October 19, 2012 at 2:25pm
"France"...."and What Americans Should Learn From It ". Good one! I'm probably terribly paraphrasing a US general here, but I recall someone saying that "We have nothing to learn from the French experience in Vietnam, as they did not win". Can't say that I have observed a great deal of movement from that frank admission of over 40 years ago to general attitudes today.
- Nari224
October 19, 2012 at 3:32pm
Bravo. MAYBE this very young country could learn a thing or two? Oh wait, "No Apologies," right.
- Sophia
October 19, 2012 at 11:22pm
The French have been around since Charlemagne and have a lot to apologize for. The US isn't perfect by any means, but show me another country that went to war against itself to abolish the evil system of slavery?
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 12:08am
President Hollande deserves credit, indeed, for the renewed and continuing the efforts to have France reckon with the shameful episodes of oppression in its recent history. But, as the 2005 UMP measures to espouse pride in France's colonial enterprise suggest, there is no consensus on feelings of remorse or shame for many of France's serious historical transgressions. In fact, one could suggest that there is a strong countervailing cultural spirit to the apologizing re-initiated by President Hollande. As someone who spends time frequently in France and lives on its borders, I note that the French are obviously and decidedly proud of two things: their military history (even their efforts to endure humiliating losses); and their role as colonial masters. The latter, in particular, sees them actively seek to retain their colonies abroad (Outre Mers) and to maintain these distinctions within their society (hence their flagrant use of `Black, Blanc, Beur'). To my mind, this continuing active reflection on their most recently past historical conquests is holding back progress in their society; and one poignant example of a missed opportunity speaks volumes about the French mindset: As France, the UK, and to a lesser and different extent Italy, struggle with the challenges of integrating former colonial and immigrant populations into their societies, they have the lacked role models of successful mobility that the U.S. possesses in their African-American and other hyphenated-American ethnic minority populations. France, in particular, struggles mightily with these tensions, while the UK is decades ahead. Thus, it must have been particularly embarassing for France when the first black person appointed the CEO of one of the UK's largest companies (FTSE 100)was Tidjane Thiam at Prudential in 2009 -- a French citizen of Ivorian descent who had, 25 years earlier, graduated top of his class at one of the leading French administrative/professional schools which serve as the springboard to business and political careers, and then built a highly successful career in finance and financial consultancy in France. Since Mr. Thiam's appointment at Prudential, the French have fallen all over themselves naming this one man to Board of Director positions at as many firms as possible.
- vst
October 20, 2012 at 2:13am
"The US isn't perfect...but show me another country that went to war against itself to abolish the evil system of slavery?" Sorry, arnon, but the War Between the States was in no way about "abolishing the evil system of slavery". Formally, the war was initiated based on the declaration of secession from the Union by most (7/11) of the slave states, which was considered to be `rebellion.' Despite popular opinion to the contrary, even Abraham Lincoln did not oppose slavery -- he had merely opposed its expansion to other states. The Civil War was about holding the United States together, not about slavery. The clearest indicator of this fact is that, during the Reconstruction Era of ca. 1865-1877, so much autonomy was handed back to these slave states such that they could strip most legal rights form their black citizenry (thereby undoing achievements such as the first appointments to Congress of blacks) and return blacks to a state of semi-slavery, servitude and subjugation through various measures.
- vst
October 20, 2012 at 2:36am
vst. It seems to me that one would have to contend with straight face that the civil war would have occurred in the absence of slavery in order to make your argument hold water. Though I will agree that it is reasonable to suspect dilution of purity in motivations. This would hold true for revisionists of all stripes. Do you contend for truth sake or some other motivation?
- jacko
October 20, 2012 at 5:06am
The CW was indeed about holding the Union together...but the only reason the Union was under threat was that the Southern states saw all too accurately that slavery in the USA was on the way out. The only way for the South to have remained peacefully in the Union was for it to have accepted abolition. Thus the war was about both a state's right to cecede and the abolition of slavery. I don't know you, vst, and I don't presume to know where you're coming from on this, but in my experience revisionist attempts such as yours to divorce the Civil War from the problem of the peculiar institution are usually voiced by creepy, bow-tie wearing Lost Cause romanticists and war reenactors who simply cannot stand the fact that their heroes Stonewall, J.E.B. and Robert E. were on the wrong side not just of history but the divide between good and evil.
- AaronW
October 20, 2012 at 6:20am
Aaron. On the other side of the likely contenders is the Cornell West kind of argument which essentially indicts all of white Americanism as being beyond redemption due to its inherent and institutionalized racism. Anything WASP is guilty.
- jacko
October 20, 2012 at 9:20am
Jacko, Aaron, you are certainly entitled to question my motives, but my point about the severe backsliding of civil rights for former slaves during Reconstruction represents the prima facie test of the argument that the Civil War was fought primarily to end slavery. After all, who wages and wins a war and the spoils that accompany it, only to hand these back to the vanquished? I do not contend that the War would have occurred in the absence of slavery but the point is that slavery was considered little more than a system and means of economic production for the slave states, with considerable heterogeneity in its application within these territories. (The moral question simply did not trouble these people...and it still doesn't.) The fight between the Confederacy and the Union was primarily and overwhelmingly about economic self-governance for the slave states versus the potential loss of valuable territory and federal governance over trade practices. Victory led to arguably the most significant strengthening of the role of the federal government in U.S. history.
- vst
October 20, 2012 at 12:11pm
Vst "Sorry, arnon, but the War Between the States was in no way about "abolishing the evil system of slavery". Formally, the war was initiated based on the declaration of secession from the Union by most (7/11) of the slave states, which was considered to be `rebellion.' Despite popular opinion to the contrary, even Abraham Lincoln did not oppose slavery -- he had merely opposed its expansion to other states." As jacko and Aaron said, you can't disentangle slavery as a cause of the civil war. I would go further and say that slavery was the central cause. Americans living at the time knew that: the Irish in New York, for example, who rioted because they didn't want to go to war to free "Negroes”, also knew that slavery was the main cause of the civil war. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html Moreover as Lincoln’s “House Divided Speech” (1858 or 1859 ) declared he was opposed to slavery for pragmatic reasons. I know that Marxists reject that slavery was the main cause of the civil war because it goes against their theory about how history evolves. To them only economic issues count as important causes historical events: the view that slavery a cause of the civil war is to them an idealistic view of history which doesn't take into account dialectical materialism. To me dialectical materialism is as idealistic as any other theory of historical causality.
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 12:47pm
“Jacko, Aaron, you are certainly entitled to question my motives, but my point about the severe backsliding of civil rights for former slaves during Reconstruction represents the prima facie test of the argument that the Civil War was fought primarily to end slavery. After all, who wages and wins a war and the spoils that accompany it, only to hand these back to the vanquished?” The Reconstruction period was a complicated one. After the civil war was over Blacks couldn’t take advantage of their freedoms because a majority were illiterate and very few could make their way in a world of which they were ignorant. Still the fact the Southern whites had to form an organization like the KKK in order to terrorize Blacks into submission means that freed blacks were challenging whites when they became free. Some blacks did sit in State legislatures which drove Southern whites crazy. In any case, whatever happened during the reconstruction period can’t negate the causes of the civil war.
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 1:01pm
fwiw, the lesson from post-Civil War Reconstruction may be that it really does matter who is your Vice President. Lucky for France that Hollande is vocally setting the historical record straight. Will he apologize for French appeasement to Viking terrorists, for handing over what was renamed Normandy to the Norsemen, whose descendants later invaded Britain in 1066? Will he apologize for France's more recent military intervention in Cote D'Ivoire, an intervention that prevented a civil war in a former colony? When Turkey's Erdogan apologizes for the legacy of the Ottomans, a mess that still threatens world peace, then maybe these apologies will mean something. May Hollande get his wish to abolish homework in order to level the playing field for French children who may not have a home supportive of homework - Obama should follow suit in his next term - surely an Executive Order to force all children to stay at school until they finish their homework (oh, sorry, in NYC, they already abolished most homework) ,
- K2K
October 20, 2012 at 1:42pm
Arnon, we can possibly debate this issue ad infinitum, but it is simply far more complicated than you make it out to be. I think that some, admittedly selective, chronology is useful here: September 1850: Compromise of 1850 to avoid secession of slave states 1854: Free Soil Party (which opposes the slave-owning oligarchy) merges into the Republican Party November 6, 1860: Election of Abraham Lincoln triggered declaration of secession by South Carolina in December, 1860 February 1861: The Confederacy established via The Montgomery Convention April 12, 1861: initiation of hostilities (Confederate troops firing on U.S. military at Fort Sumter) January 1, 1863: Executive Order (Emancipation Proclamation) issued which made destruction of slavery an additional goal of the war The Confederate States were fighting to maintain economic self-governance based on a slave economy and social system but the Union/federal government was fighting to keep the Union together and to dismantle the increasing political power of the slave-owning oligarchy, thereby preventing the spread of slavery which was clearly viewed as an inefficient economic system that would hinder long-term economic development.
- vst
October 20, 2012 at 2:08pm
Everyone knows that the South seceeded because, if they didn't, "Gone with the Wind" would never be written.
- ironyroad
October 20, 2012 at 2:41pm
Your chronology is very selective indeed. Of course the South fought to maintain its economic system based on slavery an that was a threat to the North. From an abolitionist perspective slavery was a challenge to their belief in individual freedom which to them was a aspect of their religious creed. It was also a challenge to workers who had to compete with Slave labor. Remember that the Republican Party had been founded as a challenge to the slave States. Also, after the war it was impossible for the Union arms to keep its army indefinitely in the South in order to protect the freed slaves forever. In an case, yes historical events are complicated, however no amount of dialectical materialist complication can change the fact that it was all about slavery.
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 3:45pm
The conflict over slavery was firstly about constitutional rights (of states) versus federalist power; and secondly about the restraint of oligarchical rule and the constraint of economic opportunity for an expansive economy and society. The prevalence of nationalist inclinations in the South (Unionists) as well as the North was significant and ascendant. It drove the electoral platform of 1860 and the subsequent military defense of the Union (including, for example, the secession of West Virginia from Virginia). If one wishes to delude themselves in the belief that some great moral compulsion drove a privileged population to overturn an inconvenient institution which they had already tolerated in their midst for more than a century and from which they derived great wealth, who am I to seek to dissuade them.
- vst
October 20, 2012 at 5:15pm
I think this discussion is a little confused because two separate issues are getting mixed up: the motives of the Union in resisting secession, and the motives of the South in seceding. If one is arguing from the framework of the former question, then restoring the full Union was clearly the overriding motive in politics and in the public mind. If one is arguing the second question, then slavery is absolutely crucial to the South's thinking. Many black Northerners such as Frederic Douglass and other abolitionists believed -- correctly, as it turned out -- that no matter what the Union's initial goals were, the war would ultimately become a war to also end slavery.
- ironyroad
October 20, 2012 at 5:37pm
no wonder Obama acolytes continue to use "racist" as an attack - we apparently ARE still fighting America's Civil War, even in a comment thread on France's new President Hollande and his apologies to Jews and Algerians. irony: I'll pass on your sad joke on Thursday, when I attend a discussion, "Culture and Context: Margaret Mitchell at Smith, 1918-1919". Seems one year of college in very Republican Yankee-land was about all Ms. Mitchell could bear :)
- K2K
October 20, 2012 at 7:35pm
ironyroad "I think this discussion is a little confused because two separate issues are getting mixed up: the motives of the Union in resisting secession, and the motives of the South in seceding." I am with you about Douglass' comment. However, I don't think the discussion is "confused." Two parties may have slightly different reason for contesting an issue, yet the overriding issue may be something else. That the South thought that they were exercising the right to secede and the north the necessity to preserve the Union are merely the surface manifestation of the conflict. It's as if they didn't want to state the obvious: that freeing Black people from bondage was the overriding issue. Ironically, it was those who didn't wish to fight and die in the war who stated the obvious as I explained above.
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 7:42pm
“If one wishes to delude themselves in the belief that some great moral compulsion drove a privileged population to overturn an inconvenient institution which they had already tolerated in their midst for more than a century and from which they derived great wealth, who am I to seek to dissuade them.” The argument from institutional longevity can support either side in the debate. From an abolitionist perspective, slavery was a contentious issue going back to the Constitutional convention since it made a mockery of the claims it made on behalf of human rights. The mind numbing compromise that decided that black slaves were “three fifths of a person” shows to what length the country went to lie to itself about slavery and black people. Fights over the institution of slavery (legal and sometimes violent) came about periodically which had to be settled by further compromises. It’s actually the supporters of the Southern point of view who are the idealists since they were fighting over an outmoded institution that retarded economic development in the South and threatened the North through its expansion. Had the northern states not stood in the way of the expansion of slavery to the West the number of salve States would have outnumbered the Free States. This was an important part of the Northern desire to abolish it altogether. In any case, if one wishes to believe that the abolitionist cause was merely wishful thinking indulged in by idealist than who am I to dissuade them.
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 8:01pm
I would also suggest that if the South had been allowed to secede there still would have been at some point a North versus South war over the expansion of slavery into territories claimed by each side as "theirs."
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 8:04pm
K2K “no wonder Obama acolytes continue to use "racist" as an attack - we apparently ARE still fighting America's Civil War, even in a comment thread on France's new President Hollande and his apologies to Jews and Algerians.” What the hell are you talking about? Who here accused anyone of “racism?”
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 8:50pm
Here is a glimpse of an apology that matters far, far more than crimes of the past, one of six views of the Malala Moment in Pakistan, from the Christian Science Monitor: "6. 'Our two-faced policies on extremists' "Imran Khan and religious conservatives aren't the only ones taking criticism in the wake of Malala's shooting. In a daring essay in the left-leaning Express-Tribune, a lieutenant colonel now retired from the Pakistani military heaps blame for the country's radicalism on the generals. The hands that today hold the weapons that fire on innocent girls like Malala Yousufzai are the same hands that were employed by the state to fight our secret war in Kashmir . The generals of that time propagated the brilliance of their military strategy that employed a few hundred jihadists to engage and hold back half a million Indian troops in Kashmir, thus blocking any Indian military design to challenge us on the eastern front. Little did the generals know that the same guns will one day be used to kill our innocent daughters. The writer, Muhammad Ali Ehsan, goes on to argue that it's not enough to push the military to clean up the mess of radicals it created. He argues the Islamic radical mindset won't be defeated by killing the believers in the hills, but by bringing to justice those who egged on the beliefs from the barracks. Those who formulated and implemented the policy in the past of supporting, arming and training militants to fight proxy wars against India and Afghanistan must be held accountable. If this is not done, we will have many more leaders playing with the future of this country, leaving Malala, her generation and the generation after that to pay the price. That's a sentiment rarely aired in a country where the military is often relied upon to clean up even its own mistakes. " http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/1015/The-Malala-moment-6-Pakistani-views-on-the-girl-shot-by-the-Taliban/Our-two-faced-policies-on-extremists
- K2K
October 20, 2012 at 9:41pm
Another 2k2 or K2K post that makes no sense: "Here is a glimpse of an apology that matters far, far more than crimes of the past, one of six views of the Malala Moment in Pakistan, from the Christian Science Monitor" "Those who formulated and implemented the policy in the past of supporting, arming and training militants to fight proxy wars against India and Afghanistan must be held accountable. If this is not done, we will have many more leaders playing with the future of this country, leaving Malala, her generation and the generation after that to pay the price...." How is this an apology?
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 10:02pm
My. Has this little stream of a thread meandered far from its roots. Question: because Hollande, righteously, apologized for France's role in the Shoah and for massacre(s) in Algeria, both of which are within living memory, does he now have to apologize for somebody in the distant past supposedly having "appeased" the Vikings, etc etc etc and so forth? Which then caused the Normans to invade Britain? Except, that isn't even true. Many of the Normans were descendants Celts and other indigenous Brits who'd been driven out of Britain by the Angles and the Saxons.
- Sophia
October 20, 2012 at 10:05pm
Anyhow why does it upset people that he has apologized for two terrible crimes? Are you worried the US might have to start coming clean? That would be one long, wide apology tour by the way.
- Sophia
October 20, 2012 at 10:06pm
"... does he now have to apologize for somebody in the distant past supposedly having "appeased" the Vikings, etc etc etc and so forth?" Of course he doesn't. As usual K2K was trying to be clever. He doesn't seem to like apologies (and to a degree, I don't either) and his post was more whimsical than earnest. In any case one can't apologize for the past. He probably wasn't even alive when it occurred. Had those who committed the crimes apologized than it would have meant something. n any case the two crimes Holland mentioned are not commensurate. One crime was part of an almost universal attempt at extermination of a people, the other was part of a brutal but limited civil conflict. To be meaningful an apology can't be abstract and needs to be specific. Still, Holland is a good man and he is means well. (I am not being sarcastic here.)
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 10:55pm
"Are you worried the US might have to start coming clean?" Come clean about what? is there anything the US did that is a secret? Are the "crimes" committed by the US worse than those committed by, say Algeria, or China, or most other countries? ' That would be one long, wide apology tour by the way." How so?
- arnon1
October 20, 2012 at 10:58pm
arnon -- yes, agree with your point above that the Civil War could well have happened later even if not directly as a result of seccession in 1861. In fact the "Civil War" began earlier, in any case, with the irregular armed engagements in the Kansas Territory (John Brown et al) as the South began to create facts on the ground by exporting slaves to federal territories. K2K -- sounds like an interesting discussion on Mitchell, love to be there.
- ironyroad
October 21, 2012 at 12:18am
Is Hollande warming up for the big apology: Haiti? That will come sooner than a USA apology to Mexico, or Cuba. I may be cynical about politician's apologies, but the world would be a bit less tense if apologies were sincere, and helped resolve age-old enmities. Japan v China would be my #1 choice for real apology. What the USA should never apologize for is our Bill of Rights. Freedom of belief and expression are what make America "exceptional", that pesky term that has become a partisan fault-line, when it should not. Viking history was transformative - but is not really covered in US schools. France ceding part of their kingdom to the Norsemen (hence place name of Normandy) was appeasement that worked. The Vikings stopped their annual terrifying extortion trips to Paris, and transitioned into farmers and traders with a penchant for early democracy. Bruce Riedel on why Malala and Pakistan matter: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/21/obama-and-romney-must-address-the-pakistan-problem.html
- K2K
October 21, 2012 at 6:26am
I guess I'm late to the party, but as to Mr. Bell's article itself, I agree with everything except the bit about the Enola Gay exhibition. As planned, the exhibit was a clear exercise in political correctness. The actual exhibit included front pages of newspapers from the day after the bombing, which spoke in shocked terms of the "terrible weapon." And of course the toll of dead and wounded was provided as well. The planned exhibit, on the other hand, was an exercise in condescending political correctness, the enlightened elite informing the great unwashed of their filthy condition. The use of the bomb could have been prevented by the simple act of a Japanese surrender. The military elite that ran Japan preferred to see their countrymen die in droves rather than admit that they had led their country to disaster. Hirohito had far more to apologize for than Truman.
- AlanVann
October 21, 2012 at 12:13pm
Yes, David Bell is wrong about the bombing of Japan with atomic weapons. The Japanese did attack us and they did hav the choice of surrender. I don't think Bell's position is so much PCM as ir reflects a desire reconcile all former enemies. A recent Holocaust empirical in I think Holland wanted to list the names of victims and perpetra toes as victims of war. This is an insult to the victims. True reconciliation occurs when the parties themselves agree to it. There is no such thing as retrospective reconciliation.
- arnon1
October 21, 2012 at 2:18pm
Politicians are those seeking election. Once elected they cease being politicians and act as officials in the name o the people. Holland is acting as a head of State and not as a politician. Hence his apologies are given in they name of the French people.
- arnon1
October 21, 2012 at 2:24pm
Our misdeeds may be public (some of them) but don't really resonate in the mind of the American public, which prefers to think that recognizing shortcomings, past and present, is a sign of weakness. One of the most egregious: our dealings with Latin America. That has consequences to this day, including for example the source of some Bain start up capital. People don't draw between the dots. The dots may be public but the lines between them are unseen. Same with Iran, Lebanon, the links between corporate and political power that blur the lines - now practically erased thanks to Citizens United. So maybe apologizing isn't the point. But awareness certainly is and we as a country don't have much, which explains Rush Limbaugh and FOX "News." They wouldn't survive in France, probably although some far Right parties are gaining power, again, in Europe. I guess what troubles me is an anti-historical, anti-intellectual bent here that is threatening to undo not only the "New Deal" but the Enlightenment, and which has empowered rich corporations beyond what's decent, to the point of actually lying on the "news" as a matter of course and even telling employees how to vote. We need the kind of balance and awareness, self-awareness and awareness of history - and our country is young - exhibited by M. Hollande.
- Sophia
October 21, 2012 at 3:01pm
As for the Shoah: the dead can't reconcile and nobody should reconcile with the Nazis, ever. That said, in other less extreme situations, the living can reconcile: in Rwanda, in the Arab world, between the Algerians, for example, and the French there can be honesty, openness and healing. Between Israelis and Palestinians reconciliation is not only possible and desirable, it is vital.
- Sophia
October 21, 2012 at 3:05pm
from Sophia's pen to Hamas, ROFL: "Between Israelis and Palestinians reconciliation is not only possible and desirable, it is vital." Usually people get wisdom as they age. Apparently not if you think MSNBC is a news source, and not if you deny a direct link between Nazi doctrine and the birth of the Palestinian Liberation Org. btw, his name is spelled Hollande.
- K2K
October 21, 2012 at 3:34pm
Alan, I don't agree with your PC accusation in respect of the NASM Enola Gay controversy. Although the original set of scripts -- there were many changes as a result of the curators' discussions with various groups including USAAF veterans -- did involve a far more extensive account of the immediate effects of the atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were long exhibit sections planned dealing with the 509th bomber group and the aircraft, emphasising the courage and determination of the crews as well as the engineering breakthrough of the B29. Without going into a lot of complexities here, I'd simply offer the comment that it turned out to be impossible -- and a bad curatorial decision on the NASM's part -- to commemorate the war-ending mission of Tibbets and his men in an appropriate way while simultaneously taking a hard look at the effects of atomic weapons and the implications of their use to end WW2.
- ironyroad
October 21, 2012 at 3:52pm
Sophia "Our misdeeds may be public (some of them) but don't really resonate in the mind of the American public, which prefers to think that recognizing shortcomings, past and present, is a sign of weakness." What the hell constitutes the "American public?" Aren't you, am not I, part of the American public. The "public" in this context is a useless generalization. Perhaps they do "prefer to think about" but disagree with your conclusions, Sophia. Ever think of that?
- arnon1
October 21, 2012 at 5:42pm
vst is right about the civil war. lincoln wanted a united country and felt that it either had to be 'all free' or 'all slave.' he strongly preferred 'all free' but would have tolerated 'all slave' if that would have preserved the union. the south, correctly, realized that surrounding slave states with free states would eventually lead to the end of slavery. lincoln envisioned this happening over the course of a few decades, maybe deporting them all to central america... the south, realizing that slavery and their way of life would be over w/o slave expansion (even with lincoln agreeing to continue to enforce the fugitive slave act and not stop the trade on the seas), immediately seceded when lincoln won the 1860 election, before he was even inaugurated.
- mmathog
October 21, 2012 at 11:51pm
Okay mmathog. I find myself wanting brass tacks and all because this really is kind of a pivotal mindset of contention. For you and Sophia and the author of this article. What is the purpose of your needing to square, with what you consider and attribute to the unwashed, the errant mythology that the Civil War was a fight with liberty as its bottom line cause and effect? One might be forgiven ( if such a thing exists in such a universe ) for getting the impression that insistence upon a collective moral depravity is paying dues to the Jungian insistence of accounting for the un/subconscious Primordial Man or even for that matter the Judeo/Christian claim of universal insufficiency of separation from Truth but for the intercession/attention to God. How would you settle these accounts? Sophia. I find myself wanting to invite you to specifics on incidents requiring atonements.
- jacko
October 22, 2012 at 1:36pm
Your callow finishing flourish deserves a callow dismissive reply. Never say never. Or is that too steeped in history? Nonetheless, your statement is clumsy. In America we do not apologize when we are in the right, as in "with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in". The natural law view is that the right is God given - it is not dictated by tyrants and demagogues. Perhaps you have written a history of Vichy France? How many Jews did the French government kill?
- dmking316b
October 22, 2012 at 4:42pm
"lincoln wanted a united country and felt that it either had to be 'all free' or 'all slave.' he strongly preferred 'all free' but would have tolerated 'all slave' if that would have preserved the union." What is your evidence that Lincoln would have settled for an "all slave union?"
- arnon1
October 22, 2012 at 6:40pm
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388. http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html really arnon - Google is very handy
- K2K
October 22, 2012 at 8:19pm
Lincoln wasn't stupid and his formulation "without freeing any slave" is simply a description of the state of the Union before the first Southern state seceded. It does not imply an "all slave union" in the normal understanding of that term. Indeed, he had made that clear in the debates with Douglas where Lincoln confronted him over the question of a South that wanted to extend slavery into federal territories as quickly as possible like a creeping poison. That was a threatening vision to Northerners and raised the uninviting prospect of a settlement west of the Mississippi that would replicate the moribund social and economic structures of the slave South.
- ironyroad
October 22, 2012 at 9:09pm
the south needed slavery to expand to more states or the slaves would've continued reproducing and risen up and slain their masters, everyone (lincoln, the southerners, the slaves) understood this. prohibiting the expansion of slavery meant the eventual end of slavery. all that said, from the moment he took office (the south had ALREADY seceded! before the inauguration) he bent over backwards with as much conciliatory language as humanly possible (check out the 1st inaugural, you might be shocked). he envisioned a vast growing strong nation with a powerful central government (like the one we have now!) he built schools, encouraged industry, and would've done more if he wasn't fighting a war the whole time. since he was ferociously opposed to expanding slavery (as he made damn clear in the lincoln/douglas debates) that did mean the eventual end of slavery. so to be more precise, I should say 'he would have tolerated slavery in the southern territories for quite awhile, decades, in exchange for preserving the union.' he wanted to buy the slaves from the slaveholders and send the slaves to central america.
- mmathog
October 23, 2012 at 1:02am
maybe, in his heart of hearts, lincoln was an abolitionist. (I'm sure many conservatives alive today will go to their graves SWEARING obama, deep down, is a socialist.) we'll never know though, and in his public life, lincoln took great pains to distinguish himself from the abolitionist movement... he was a republican, not an abolitionist.
- mmathog
October 23, 2012 at 1:04am
re-reading vst, although I agree broadly, it all strikes me as a tad too economic determinist and entirely lacking in the motive of moral conviction. I think slavery made lincoln and a lot of republicans pretty sick, but overall, the prime motivator to fight the civil war was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves.
- mmathog
October 23, 2012 at 1:17am
"but overall, the prime motivator to fight the civil war was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves." This line of reasoning doesn't make sense since to preserve the Union all the Republicans had to do was state openly that they would not work to free the slaves. The Republican party was formed in order to end slavery. It was founded by anti-Slavery activists. Again slavery was the sine qua non of the civil war.
- arnon1
October 23, 2012 at 1:02pm
"The Republican party was formed in order to end slavery. It was founded by anti-Slavery activists. " 3 weeks ago I thought that too, I got turned around. "This line of reasoning doesn't make sense since to preserve the Union all the Republicans had to do was state openly that they would not work to free the slaves." The Republicans did that, including Lincoln, repeatedly, until they were blue in the face. Not only did Lincoln state that he wouldn't work to free the slaves, he even said he would enforce the fugitive slave act! The Republicans formed out of the ashes of the Whigs, slavery was obviously a huge issue of the day, and the Republicans were anti-expansion and they knew that would eventually end slavery, but they didn't fight the civil war to end slavery. If the South had said 'ok, no expansion, but we keep our slaves AND we get more money AND we get to trade on the high seas AND you will enforce the fugitive slave act AND slaves don't have any rights and we'll stay in the union...' Lincoln would've taken that deal in a millisecond. I don't think the republican party was founded by abolitionists, it certainly wasn't who ran it in 1858.
- mmathog
October 23, 2012 at 3:39pm
That's my clear understanding as well, mmathog. The Republican Party, like the Free Soil Party incorporated into it years later, were Parties founded primarily to pursue economic systems or visions with explicitly longer-term prospects for the modernization of the U.S. than the slave system. The problem that people outside the South had with slavery was with its limitation as an engine of economic growth. That said, I always found Robert Fogel's work on slavery as an agricultural system to be an interesting source of counterintuitive thinking on the matter.
- vst
October 23, 2012 at 5:08pm
The above comments seem to me to be valid, vst and mmathog, but without the crucial emphasis that the southern commitment to preserve slavery was the central driver of the Secession policy as an answer to Lincoln and the Republican Party, the discussion can easily veer off into swampy territory where ludicrous propositions about "states' rights" get offered as historical analysis.
- ironyroad
October 23, 2012 at 6:13pm
"I don't think the republican party was founded by abolitionists, it certainly wasn't who ran it in 1858." You are making up history just as Romney did during the debates. "The Republican Party name was christened in an editorial written by New York newspaper magnate Horace Greeley. Greeley printed in June 1854: "We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery.""
- arnon1
October 24, 2012 at 12:00am
"... slavery as an agricultural system to be an interesting source of counterintuitive thinking on the matter." Slaves were used in agricultural work (to grow cotton, etc.) That didn't make it "an agricultural system." Had slaves been used to mine coal than we would be talking about slavery as "mining system." Slavery was above all else part of the "free market system." There was a whole industry which operated the slave market all across the South. This hideous industry made slaves chattel to be bought and sold as commodities.
- arnon1
October 24, 2012 at 12:08am
On the origins of the Republican Party see: http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/tp/id/46379/show/46363 The Wisconsin Historical Society
- arnon1
October 24, 2012 at 12:13am