In 2002 I
wrote a column explaining why I wasn't excited about the Olympics. This was back when the column was emailed, and I usually wrote it quickly and then sent it off, without editing, without much thought. I got an idea, wrote it down, sent it out.
Basically I wrote that I didn't like the idea of rooting for a country. I still feel that way, except now I have a whole ideology based off that earlier belief. Anyway, in the column I said I had to root against a country, and I picked France. I did this jokingly, as France was often my punching bag back then, but I did make one point that I believe: France seems to show no gratitude to how America aided them twice in the 20th Century.
What's funny, looking back, is that I used "us" talking about America. I would never do that today.
Anyway, all my early embarrassing attempts at writing are up on the web over at
Hyperion Chronicles, free for anyone to see. Well, this morning at 3:02 am I got a comment on that #72. Here is that comment.
For some reason it really irked me, and I felt the need to respond.
Hyperion said...I probably do overrate the importance of the American involvement in WWI. I obviously was writing a humorous column, and thus was not taking the time to parse the nuances of what level of aid America gave. That said, it's not hard to make an argument that without American aid Germany might have won or prolonged the war interminably.
How did I mock "your" efforts? The Scout Troop line? That was a shot, I admit, but a funny one, which trumps sensitivity in a humor piece. More importantly, I notice you remain silent on WWII. You want to talk about an abomination: France is on the permanent UN Security Council, ostensibly given to the "winners" of WWII. Surely there is a difference between "winner" and "got saved."
As for the American Revolution, of course you're right there. French involvement was a huge reason America was able to fight long enough for Britain to quit. (Notice I don't say America won that war. I actually know a considerable bit about history, and Britain could have won that war had they chosen to. In fact, it was piracy--what they'd call terrorism now--that made Britain quit far more than Washingon's efforts. Most Americans don't want to know that.
As for calling me a typical neo-con racist, allow me to educate you. French people are not a race. If you are going to accuse someone of a horrible thing, you should at least know what the word means. You should have called me a xenophobe or a Francophobe. You would have been wrong, but at least your terminology would have been right. As for neo-con, all I can do is roll my eyes. I have never found anyone yet who even knew what the term meant, let alone used it correctly.
Moreover, if you had read closely this column, you would have seen that I abhor jingoism, which is the entire reason I wrote the column. Yes, I took shots at France, but I don't consider America to be a better place than anyone else. I just get tired of a country that traces it's lineage back to cave men days forgetting the Marshall Plan entirely. I get annoyed that France goes on and on about torture, when they themselves made sure the UN exempted previous acts when the torture laws were written, because France acted so abominably in their colonies, specifically Algeria. Didn't know that? Read up on your country. One of the worst human rights records in a long long time. Am I saying its black and white? No. But it's pretty galling (what a great pun!) that France would lecture anybody about human rights with their atrocities so recently in the past. (Of course, I often feel that way about America, with slavery and the American Indians, but France's mistreatment is more on point.)
Lastly--and this is key--you obviously haven't read my stuff. I have almost 1 million words written on my various sites. If you had, you would know that I don't even consider myself American, let alone a rah-rah supporter. But you didn't do that. Fine. You only read the parts that interested you. Fine. You took offense. Fine. But you didn't even have the courage to leave a name, an email address: anything. You commented as Anonymous. Sir, you are worse than a Frenchman. At least the French soldiers went down bravely on the field of battle, often betrayed by incompetent leaders. But you? Did you step bravely onto the Champ de Mars, ready for battle? No. You attacked with a horrible accusation, and then ran and hid. You're not a Frenchman. You're just a coward. I'm ashamed that I ever slept with your mother.
Too harsh? Too lenient? Too racist? Why I would pay attention I haven't the foggiest, but I felt the need to strike back.
You overate your importance in World War I. I'm sick of americans saying they saved us in the first world war. You came at the last minute and we lost more men in a single battle than the americans did in the entire war. How dare you mock our efforts. And you probably would not even exsist if wasn't for us saving you in your own American revolution. Typical neo-con racist.
3:02 AM