Want to test how rude I can be ?
What's the deal with the "French surrendering" jokes?
- Thread starter DevilEyes
- Start date
Want to test how rude I can be ?
The bland assumption that no right thinking person could possibly dare to criticize US foreign policy, or even its unemployment insurance program, is not an argument but an appeal to prejudice. In this case, the flip side of xenophobia, an unreasoning and baseless conviction that "our" country is the best, at everything, and the only one not motivated by evil.
The newest invasion of Haiti is a particularly good example. The primary goal of the invasion was to keep order. Since there were no great disorders to quell, it was a vilely unmotivated invasion. The primary goal of keeping control of the country explains what would otherwise be insanely counterproductive actions. Two examples: The transport of military personnel and military equipment was so large it preempted airport landings for real relief supplies for civilians. The hospital ship offshore refused to accept Haitian patients. (Military hospitals, floating or not, stand in reserve for soldiers, it's part of their military mission.)
As for the observation that the US has possibly the most diverse ethnic composition of any country, I can only observe that it's Native American population is pretty low. Also, a country so desperate for labor it steals it from other parts of the world is going to have a diverse ethnic population but that has nothing, nothing to do with xenophilia on the part of the population.
The sudden rediscovery that the French are "dicks" dates back to their then government's criticism of US policy. Grievances were promptly recalled and nursed back into a dull rage or keen resentment, according to the individual natures of the patriots. Given the context of personal experience and such public events already mentioned, I conclude apparently most US nationals are horribly xenophobic. Or at least the conservative segment of the population, which we are informed is the vast majority.
For the sake of your blood pressures, just assume I'm part of the insignificant minority.
The newest invasion of Haiti is a particularly good example. The primary goal of the invasion was to keep order. Since there were no great disorders to quell, it was a vilely unmotivated invasion. The primary goal of keeping control of the country explains what would otherwise be insanely counterproductive actions. Two examples: The transport of military personnel and military equipment was so large it preempted airport landings for real relief supplies for civilians. The hospital ship offshore refused to accept Haitian patients. (Military hospitals, floating or not, stand in reserve for soldiers, it's part of their military mission.)
As for the observation that the US has possibly the most diverse ethnic composition of any country, I can only observe that it's Native American population is pretty low. Also, a country so desperate for labor it steals it from other parts of the world is going to have a diverse ethnic population but that has nothing, nothing to do with xenophilia on the part of the population.
The sudden rediscovery that the French are "dicks" dates back to their then government's criticism of US policy. Grievances were promptly recalled and nursed back into a dull rage or keen resentment, according to the individual natures of the patriots. Given the context of personal experience and such public events already mentioned, I conclude apparently most US nationals are horribly xenophobic. Or at least the conservative segment of the population, which we are informed is the vast majority.
For the sake of your blood pressures, just assume I'm part of the insignificant minority.
Point me in the direction of the post that said American foreign policy can't be criticized, please. I'm beginning to think that your interpretation of people's posts is just as based on flawed logic and misrepresentations as your impressions of the US.
It was initially a very disorganized operation because the already shoddy infrastructure of the entire country had been flattened. Things don't always run smoothly when you have that many countries trying to fly aid in to a single destroyed airport all at once, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy or an invasion, just a SNAFU.
Yes, we've already established that the US has done terrible wrongs in the past (and even does some today), but why is it acceptable for you to hold most of today's Americans responsible for the deeds of the 19th century and WWII? By your standards everyone in the world is a xenophobe because no country has a flawless track record on human rights.
Is this an immigration reference? I fully support amnesty for illegal immigrants living in the country and an easing of the naturalization process for new immigrants, but to characterize illegal immigration as the US "stealing" foreign labor is nuts.
"Most" Americans are "horribly xenophobic"? You are unbelievable.
I love that you're opposed to the French surrender jokes yet have no problem making serious comments that are just as offensive and inaccurate.
Oh, I'm assuming a lot about you, I assure you. And you are a part of a very insignificant minority, fortunately.
Yes, of course. All nationalism inevitably is exclusionary and xenophobic.
Can stuff like this be for real? Rephrasing to demand an open confession of something obviously outrageous doesn't take away from the fact that the statements below do exactly what I said: Assume any criticism of US policy or institutions is impossible to be sincere.
Of course sending troops to another country can be considered an invasion! The assumption that sending troops to another country doesn't consitute an invasion is the wacky idea that needs to be justified. The assumption that you don't even need to provide evidence really shows where the poster is coming from.
Ignores the arguments I made. Ignores the publicly acknowledged interest in maintaining order, even in the face of news reports amazed at the relative good order!
Baselessly characterizes a dissenting view as warped. Having no facts or logic, the resort to a charge of bad faith really takes gall.
I kept reading until "The US is so socially primitive." I should have quit while I was ahead.
Note the bland assumption that no one could possibly criticize US employment insurance as socially primitive. My guess is that this person isn't even interested in the topic, just wants to join in expressing outrage anyone dare criticize US policy or institutions.
The US has an enormously diverse population because it needed labor. It didn't steal illegal immigrants of course, it stole slaves. Believing anyone thought otherwise is nuts, or maybe semiliterate. The point about slaves would be ancient history if Jim Crow was ancient history. It is particularly apt here as a reminder that ethnic diversity in the US can go hand in hand with virulent racism (the unpolite term for xenophobia.) Thus, concluding US nationals aren't xenophobic is a logical non sequitur.
Canada has been quite accepting of immigrants. Mexico and the South American nations have been quite accepting of immigrants, particularly the ones where the Native American populations were more or less exterminated (Chile, Argentina and Paraguay.) To be honest, I'm not that strong on those countries histories, but I think they don't have a phenomenon like the American Party movement (Know-Nothings) in their respective histories. Or, to put it another way, Bernardo O'Higgins got to be a great leader when the Irish in the US could be targets of race riots.
So any disagreement with your interpretation of events or characterization of most of the American people automatically equates to saying no one is allowed to criticize American foreign policy, even if that was never remotely implied by anyone? That's a nice little set-up you've got going there. If one were as prone to using ridiculous logic and extreme hyperbole as you are they might even say it was a tyrannical attempt at suppressing dissent. If one were like you.
Yes, sending troops to another nation "can be" considered an invasion. But not in all circumstances, such as the humanitarian relief effort in Haiti, which is international, approved by the Haitian leadership, and absolutely necessary for the continued health (such as it is) of many if not most of its people.
Do you accuse every other country with troops participating in the relief efforts of being an invader with no goodwill as well?
How does one "justify" a subjective opinion of what constitutes an invasion, anyway? In the loosest sense of the word it can be accurate I suppose, but then it sort of loses its most commonly held meaning - which is also the context you were using it in.
Maintaining order in a disaster zone does not necessarily equal invasion. When people are desperate and scared they sometimes turn to crime and in doing so often hurt others or hurt local interests which affects more people in the area negatively. Would you just say to hell with it and leave the people to fend for themselves? Most would do the right thing, but that's cold comfort for those that are robbed or murdered or forced to leave what little shelter they can find in the meantime.
More like wishful thinking that you would at the very least condemn modern day American people for something that was currently happening instead of once again blaming them for the sins of the past. Obviously I was expecting too much from you.
Again, do you also hold the people of other nations of Earth equally responsible for all of their nation's past misdeeds, or does that only apply to the United States? Because if you do, it must be a pretty sad and hateful view of the world you have, and if you don't, you are a colossal hypocrite.
Also, from now on can you please include the user names of the people you are quoting in your post so others don't mix up who said what?
No, this one just laughs at the awkward attempts of fringe axe-grinders to sound intellectual.Note the bland assumption that no one could possibly criticize US employment insurance as socially primitive. My guess is that this person isn't even interested in the topic, just wants to join in expressing outrage anyone dare criticize US policy or institutions.I kept reading until "The US is so socially primitive." I should have quit while I was ahead.
To my knowledge, French surrendering jokes do go back to Third Reich occupation & perceptions of France as a collaborator (vide Vichy govt). Haven't heard any of those jokes in the Republic; which is interesting, given our history as an occupied country & the responses to that.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
It's the declining quality of the French men. Too many died in the Napoleanic wars and WW1. Then WW2 hit.
The real reason Germany isn't a threat today is due to their losses of men in WW2.
If too many guys with balls die before fathering kids, buncha lame ducks are left to spread their DNA and whole countries go hell. Every macho sperm is sacred.
The real reason Germany isn't a threat today is due to their losses of men in WW2.
If too many guys with balls die before fathering kids, buncha lame ducks are left to spread their DNA and whole countries go hell. Every macho sperm is sacred.
No. That's just not correct.
The U-Boats never even came close to driving the British to the conference table. In the words of Roger Chickering, author of Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914-1918: "The situation in Great Britain had been briefly scary in the middle of 1917; but the British food supply was never in jeopardy." (p. 93) By the end of the year, the only country in danger of starving was Germany.
You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the enemy die for his.
That's sort of the point.
Actually, whaty the U.S. resented most was not the:
"We won't go in with you, and don't think you should go in at all..."
But rather the:
"Hey, when it's all over, we (the Frenc) want and deserve the first crack at all the rebuilding contracts..."
attitude of the French government. personally, as a U.S. citizen; I was personall for going into Afghanistan to find Bin Laden and kick the crap out of the Taliban there at the time; but was always against going into Iraq. If GWB had verifiable evidence of Nuclear weapons or a thriving Nuclear weapon development program in Iraq at the time maybe; but with what was shown and released at the time, it took resources from the Afghanistan effort.
I think you are mixing up causes with effects. The sensitivity to Political Correctness is the results of social stresses and the need to ease them off. You can argue that sometimes it goes overboard with it, and I would agree with you. But I can't agree that the world's problems are caused by trying too much to be polite and inclusive.
Again, I would argue that it is a problem only if "who you are" is kinda rude. In real life, "political correctness" doesn't even come in my mind as a concept: I just try to be polite to everyone and I never had a problem.
(Sorry for the late reply, I was away for a few days.)
How about those who are really offended by the frakking STUPIDITY of it?
Or is that not allowed?
Something I've learned from the responses to this thread: you have to be OK with idiotic chauvinistic jokes; if you don't, you're a really horrible person who is what is wrong with the human society today.
Uh...
I have seen the light! I've seen the error of my ways. To show that I have repented and changed my ways, the next time I meet an American, I'll call them stupid, lazy and fat (even if they aren't at all). If they also happen to be black, I'll crack a joke about slavery. Nevermind that we don't know each other and have just met, they should not get offended in the slightest. Otherwise I'll call them PC (which is the most horrible thing a human being can be, surpassing nazi, racist etc.) and tell them they're jerks and that they're what's wrong with this world.
Oh, and I agree that it's awful for people to "pretend" to be offended by jokes that are aimed at others... I mean, come on, as if anyone can be offended by racism/chauvinism/sexism/homophobia etc. if they aren't a target? What bull! People should only care about what offends them, and it's natural to despise or just don't give a shit about the other ethnicities, genders, nationalities, sexual orientations, blah blah blah... pretty much anyone who is different, and to enjoy in any jokes or offenses at their expense. That is the natural order of things!
QFT.
Last edited:
Amidst all the screaming of gored oxen, I missed this, sorry.
The Clinton invasion stabilized the refugee situation by reinstalling Aristide as a figurehead, but also emasculated his movement's political power, ensuring there would be no leftist change.
The US does currently run Haiti in the sense that it ensures the government will support private property and pay foreign debt and follow the Washington Consensus on economic policy (one proven over and over to fail.) And the Obama invasion blocked relief to make sure the government would not collapse in the face of catastrophe. Ergo, it is an invasion.
The assumption that no one could possibly think that US employment insurance is socially primitive, that saying so is just intellectual pretension, confesses as clearly as one could without literally crying "I confess!"
Lastly, I could pronounce on the xenophobia of the human species, or merely other countries I have no personal experience of, but, honestly, wouldn't that be rather arrogant of me?