American leadership 1945-2008: a survey

This thread is meant as a survey.

What I would love to hear from non-American Orgahs is:

How did your nation regard the leadership role of the United States throughout the post-WWII era? Did it change much? And how is American leadership regarded in your country now?

Don’t offer the views of a vocal minority, but the general feeling if you can.
Hard to pinpoint, I know, but please give it a try.

I will of course kick off. Since this is a holdover from the Election 2008 thread I will use some texts I posted earlier. You can be shorter if you want, or refer to my text for brevity’s sake.

Oh, and of course all American Orgahs are welcome to post and discuss as well. :bow:


The Netherlands


The pre-war Dutch-American relationship was friendly but unspectacular, based on a trickle of Dutch migrants to the U.S. and a trickle of American products and production methods (Taylorism) into The Netherlands. Germany, France and Britain were our main trading partners and ‘societies of reference’ so to speak. After 1945 little of the old respect was left, except for the British. The Netherlands was destitute, its population near starvation, its GDP minimal due to its heavy industry having been transported to Germany and its crops and foodstocks plundered to feed the crumbling German army.

As principal liberator, the standing of the United States was unsurpassed. As a powerful, prosperous, energetic and comparatively harmonious society it became the society of reference for the Dutch for decades to come.

Marshall Aid provided concrete instances of American inspiration: new technologies, econometric instruments and programs for neighborhood and community organisation, new staple foods, educational and agricultural reform, supermarkets, mass transport development, movies, music and scientific and student exchange.

American leadership of the free world was considered natural, just and welcome because of the above reasons, and this was underpinned by spontaneous loyalty. Immediately after German capitulation, Dutch boys began to enlist to help fight the Japanese in the Pacific and return the favor of their liberation by Americans. The use of the atomic bombs on Japan was welcomed. The episode of the Berlin Airlift and the Korean war only reinforced these sentiments.

It was only after about 1965 that they began to wane, under the influence of a new generation willing to acknowledge the nasty flipsides of American leadership and society: the Kennedys' and King's murders, the Vietnam war, the dirty coups and putsches under U.S. auspices in Latin America, the Church hearings, and the improbable attitudes of the U.S. with regard to the Middle East.

The depth of anti-American feeling was reached around 1980 when Washington asked to base cruise missile on Dutch soil. A large and vocal part of public opinion protested that the presence of theatre nuclear weapons reduced Europe to a potential nuclear battlefield between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, after which both sides would reach a ceasefire and leave a smoking rubble behind. Most Dutchmen however considered their emplacement inevitable.

Since then, American strategic leadership has been more or less grudgingly accepted, like the behavior of the proverbial 800 lbs gorilla on the block. During the 1991 Gulf War a sizeable number of Dutch had the impression that American intervention was motivated by greed (control over oil) only, not by any concern over international law and regional security. Acknowledging American leadership is still considered a matter of national interest. As a small ally, you don't say no twice to Bubba, you get to say it only once, and you have to have a darn good reason for it. It's realism, and we like to think we're realists.

Washington is not longer considered to lead the world by example or inspiration, but by sheer economic and military weight alone. The Dutch tend to think that it leads by intimidation (Iraq) or obstruction (Kyoto) more then anything else. At the same time they have come to understand that Washington does not equal America, and that many Americans feel that way, too. Hollywood, American music, literature, food are appreciated and admired as before.

Interesting.

The Cold War and Nuclear weapons, I believe, is what has ultimately changed the character of global leadership, regardless of where that leadership stems. Nuclear weapons have replaced alliances as the requirement for a nation's survival. Where previously, without allies, a nation would truly stand alone in fright in the face of superior enemy, now that same nation can stand defiantly while relying on their arsenal of nukes. This is true not only for oligarchies and tyrants, but for democracies as well.

An interesting observation is the behavior of nuclear armed nations compared against non-nuclear partners. Non-nuclear nations have no choice but to side with a nuclear armed nation to truly ensure survival. The alternative is to become a nuclear nation itself and risk the ire of nuclear powers.

Consider:

Iran cozies to Russia while also pursuing its own nuclear weapons program. Once Iran has its own nuclear arsenal, it will find natural alliances in Arab partners within the region. It will become the regional leader, capable of ensuring its survival and the survival of its allies once it deploys ICBM capability.

Israel acts independantly within its region because of its nuclear arsenal. It can act as it pleases because of its ability to eradicate neighbors.

The UK and France act independantly because of their nuclear arsenal, while smaller european nations, especially those closer to the east, are forced to pursue entrance to NATO to ward off the Russian threat.

The United States government can act with impunity because of its unequalled military spending and technological superiority. It is held at bay by equal powers with a different vision of global leadership, namely Russia. Russia's nuclear arsenal has prevented an aggressive U.S. leader from taking even more unilateral military action than Bush has already done. However, because it is accountable to its people, the government does not typically wage wars of aggression. The absurd campaign in Iraq has toppled the Republican Party. The Democrats now control both houses of the legislature and are poised to make greater gains there while potentially gaining the White House. This is a saving grace of true democracies. They may occasionally get an idiot in a position of leadership, but that leader will not remain forever so the potential damage they can do is somewhat limited. A President that acts with true illegality will end up impeached.

Russia can also act with impunity militarily, but for the threat posed by the U.S. However, unlike a true democracy, the leadership of Russia is not hamstrung by the will of the people. The choices of Putin are far longer lasting because he can retain power through puppets indefinitely.


Anyhow, those are my thoughts. We are in an era of leadership based on military might, not moral superiority.


Hopefully this can change once we are rid of dubya. McCain or Obama offer greater integrity and ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Interesting.

The Cold War and Nuclear weapons, I believe, is what has ultimately changed the character of global leadership, regardless of where that leadership stems.

---

Cor blimey, good post Sir. I will get back to it, let others go first. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Interesting.

The Cold War and Nuclear weapons, I believe, is what has ultimately changed the character of global leadership, regardless of where that leadership stems. Nuclear weapons have replaced alliances as the requirement for a nation's survival. Where previously, without allies, a nation would truly stand alone in fright in the face of superior enemy, now that same nation can stand defiantly while relying on their arsenal of nukes. This is true not only for oligarchies and tyrants, but for democracies as well.

An interesting observation is the behavior of nuclear armed nations compared against non-nuclear partners. Non-nuclear nations have no choice but to side with a nuclear armed nation to truly ensure survival. The alternative is to become a nuclear nation itself and risk the ire of nuclear powers.

Consider:

Iran cozies to Russia while also pursuing its own nuclear weapons program. Once Iran has its own nuclear arsenal, it will find natural alliances in Arab partners within the region. It will become the regional leader, capable of ensuring its survival and the survival of its allies once it deploys ICBM capability.

Israel acts independantly within its region because of its nuclear arsenal. It can act as it pleases because of its ability to eradicate neighbors.

The UK and France act independantly because of their nuclear arsenal, while smaller european nations, especially those closer to the east, are forced to pursue entrance to NATO to ward off the Russian threat.

The United States government can act with impunity because of its unequalled military spending and technological superiority. It is held at bay by equal powers with a different vision of global leadership, namely Russia. Russia's nuclear arsenal has prevented an aggressive U.S. leader from taking even more unilateral military action than Bush has already done. However, because it is accountable to its people, the government does not typically wage wars of aggression. The absurd campaign in Iraq has toppled the Republican Party. The Democrats now control both houses of the legislature and are poised to make greater gains there while potentially gaining the White House. This is a saving grace of true democracies. They may occasionally get an idiot in a position of leadership, but that leader will not remain forever so the potential damage they can do is somewhat limited. A President that acts with true illegality will end up impeached.

Russia can also act with impunity militarily, but for the threat posed by the U.S. However, unlike a true democracy, the leadership of Russia is not hamstrung by the will of the people. The choices of Putin are far longer lasting because he can retain power through puppets indefinitely.


Anyhow, those are my thoughts. We are in an era of leadership based on military might, not moral superiority.


Hopefully this can change once we are rid of dubya. McCain or Obama offer greater integrity and ability.

---

How can we be in an age of moral superiority when morals have ceased to exist. We would be lucky to be in an age of "look, I've found a tiny moral fragment under the couch, remember how much things made sense back then"

also, you give Russia a bit too much credit. Our equals? We have no equals at the moment and only China is really on our heels (Europe too if they can ever figure out which hole to stick it in). Maybe India, but Russia?

Long story short - idle hands are the devils play things. We concot boogymen and attack the percieved threats to our livelihood. In the U.S. and abroad its the same issue, but we use different tools to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Cor blimey, good post Sir. I will get back to it, let others go first. :bow:

---

Ditto. And ditto. I'll wait 'til you get more non-yanks first. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Anyhow, those are my thoughts. We are in an era of leadership based on military might, not moral superiority.

---

Which is the natural state of things. That whole leadership of moral superiority was a abberation, a blip, and it's gone.

From an Aussie perspective...

Our foreign policy has been closely tied in with America's since 1942, when we made the decision to fight in the Pacific instead of in Europe. This lasted throughout WWII and since then we have still relied on the United States as our closest and strongest regional ally. In fact the ANZUS treaty guarantees we will support each other in the case of war.

We have supported America in most of its wars throughout the years, most noticably Vietnam until 1972, Afghanistan and Iraq (Though we will be pulling out soon). This is for a number of reasons:
1. National Interest - It was deemed to be in the "national interest" at the time to fight "communism" in the east. If the Domino Theory had indeed been true, then it was likely that we would have had many, many states to our north that would be unfriendly to us. So it was deemed to be in our ebst interests to support the UNited States, which we did almost to the end of the war.

2. Conservative Governments - Most of the 50s, 60s and 70s were dominated by conservative governments and in Australia this means that you are far more likely to be pro-American. I will return to this in a moment.

3. Political Necessity - Here in Australia if you are anti-US alliance and in politics you are instantly labelled as "weak on national security". The cynic in me will point out that wars are convenient from a political standpoint, as they assist in getting people re-elected - especially here.

So as I was saying in Australia the conservative governments are going to be more likely to hand a lot of our foreign policy over to the Americans, except for our rather unique role as peace keepers across the pacific islands. The further to the right wing a person gets, the more likely they are to support American foreign policy. I am on the fringe left and so are many people I know. We are all American-sceptic, however we are not anti-US because we realise that they are a necessity in terms of our very surivival against attack.

In politics there is bi-partisan support for continuing support for the United States, though there is disagreement on Iraq (Afghanistan remains bi-partisan... in fact I can only think of two parties who support us pulling out, of which 1 has some power). For this reason it rarely is sparked in national debate.

Pinpointing the general feeling for me will be hard, but I believe that we are anti-Iraq by a fair majority (at least 60-40. This poll may give you an idea. Its from 2 years ago, but it still gets the general idea. Also we recently elected a new anti-Iraq government), however we are broadly pro-United States. It is sort of hard to explain, but I would best summarise it as:

Our country supports stronger ties with the United States, but not all of its foreign policy objectives.

I'll try to answer any more questions as best I can.

Apologies for taking so long to reply, but I wanted to give this the time it deserved.

The Republic of Ireland

I suspect most people outside the Republic would think that our relationship with the United States is a uniformly rosy one, given the ubiquity of Irish Americans and their romantic notions of the old country - as well as the aspirations of the Irish themselves. The most influential politician in 20th century Ireland, Eamon DeValera was himself American born.

However, we are talking post-war, and therein lies the rub. Ireland was neutral in the war - and Dev, as in so many ways, contrived by his behaviour to alienate natural allies such as the States. Indeed, he was the only western leader to sign the book of condolence on Adolf Hitler's death, and this act badly affected the perception of Ireland among many politicians. For many years, the Dublin embassy became a dumping ground for troublesome members of the US establishment.

Add to this the fact that post-war Ireland was almost mediaeval, controlled by the Church and economically third world. To the Irish, the US was still seen as a Promised Land, but to the Americans - aside from election time and St Paddy's Day when lip service was paid to the voting block - Ireland represented little in the way of strategic value. Our "special relationship" was even more delusional than that of the UK - we had not stood alongside the Allies, nor would we change that stance and join NATO, for example. Dev's fanatical dislike of all things British meant that naturally, the US would favour doing business with the British as a military and strategic ally - but occasionally throw a sop to the Irish American vote back home on the future of the Six.

Ireland had always seen herself as a multilateral player, and had invested some effort into the League of Nations. After the war, she aspired to repeat this in the United Nations - the USA backed this application after Potsdam but it was vetoed by the USSR until the mid-fifties. Ireland then committed herself to a vigorous and somewhat maverick participation, particularly in mediating towards reduction in Cold War tensions and arms control. In this, she quite often ticked the US off - expecting the Irish to vote alongside her policies, we quite often went a separate way. This reached a head in the approach to Chinese admission - the USA was adamantly opposed to Communist China joining the UN. Ireland took the view that both the Peking and Formosan governments had legitimacy and voted this way - deeply surprising and offending John Dulles, not to mention the Catholic hierarchy back home. They both got over it.

The Republic's stance has continued in this vein and our rather creative view of neutrality combined with a fierce devotion to the influence of smaller states in multilateral organisations continues to this day.

The elephant in the corner however, was always partition. Continual efforts by Dublin to get the USA to pressure Britain to resolve the issue would result in platitudes and blind eyes being turned to republican activity from US soil, but little of consequence. Washington was never going to alienate a long-term military ally for an inconsequential and neutral non-entity. The hope was always that America could be the honest broker - it was even considered that a US peacekeeping force could be introduced to help moderate the Troubles - as if the Unionists would have seen them as anything other than occupiers.

Finally however, when the serious groundwork had been done by Dublin and London, President Clinton's support, charm and arm-twisting lent significant weight to the achievement of the Peace process. He is fondly remembered for this, and it seemed a renaissance in Irish-American relations might follow.

By then, Ireland had grown up. In 1973 she joined the EU and started to forge a new destiny, not constrained by romance towards the New World or bitterness towards the British. Again, our commitment to multilateralism found a home, and the enormous economic help received bolstered the economy and thence a swift rush into a modern statehood. The US became almost as irrelevant to us as we had long been to them.

I suppose it goes without saying that the actions of the Bush administration in over-riding the UN created a disdain for US policies and some anger. Our future lies with the EU - though the Lisbon treaty provokes some disquiet in theta relationship because of the fear of a European defence force that may compromise our neutrality.

The Yanks do throw a damn fine St Paddy's Day parade though, and we keep getting invited, so it's not all bad.

Nice post BG, you are right that we do have a heavily romanticised view of Ireland.

This thread has so much potential, it would be a shame to see it die.

"Sometimes", said a French diplomat, "you want just to grasp a moment and make it last". As George Bush and the French president prepare for a mutually congratulatory meeting, the French embassy in Washington purred with self-satisfaction at the remarkable improvement in relations between America and its oldest ally. This newfound cooperation stands in marked contrast to the years before, when French diplomats were talking openly of a "malaise" in the relationship.

The French president in the quote above is not Sarkozy, but Mitterand. George Bush is Bush senior. The quote and the 'remarkable improvement' dates to 1991, based on the exemplary co-operation of the US and France in the Gulf War.
Of course, ten years later during Iraq the situation was entirely different again. And currently, with Sarkozy, foreign minister Kouchner, and other government members - all decidely pro-American as much in their heart as in their policy - the relationship has drastically changed again. Never a dull moment in French-Barbarican relations. :smash:

Adrian named this thread 'American leadership 1945-2008'. Thereby showing his immersement in a Batavian tradition. Immediately, the diference with France is obvious. One of the key elements of French relations with America is a marked determination to not take American leadership for granted. :knight:

Hence, I am not going to write a piece about American leadership and how France dealt with it. Nor should it be written. It should be 'American hegemonistic tendencies and French counter-ideologies'.
At it's simplest, the main difference in Transatlantic relations between France and other (especially Northern -) European countries is, that everywhere the left has an uneasy relationship with the US, while in France, so to does the right. Socialism and communism is a counter-ideology to US hegemony, and so is Gaullism.
Rather unanimously, American cultural, economic and military hegemony has been opposed throughout the entire post-war era. To quote an old adage: 'If it were for the Germans, the whole of Europe would speak German. If it were for the Americans, the whole world would speak English'.

The rub is, that this is not the same as anti-Americanism, or opposition to America per se. (Even if the fine distinction is overlooked as often abroad as it is shamefully trespassed in France itself)
Culturally, Jazz, Woody Allen, American literature have been embraced as much after the war as Josephine Baker was before the war. Economically, for all her statism, France clearly belongs to the capitalist world. Militarily, France never left the NATO, it left the integrated command structure. In all respects, there is a sort of tension, duality.

Of course, France is not a monolith, nor historically unchangable, or even coherent in her policies. There is a full range of traditions. Depending on time, subject or person, the US can be seen as anything from an evil imperialist power to a much admired inspiration.
I think this post will get too long if I'm to write a more specific history of French-American relations following a post-war timeline. Maybe Brenus feels like it, he loves his history and is better at it than me anyway.

Oh, one other thing. A peculiarity is that there is no such thing as a big French-American community. France has been an immigrant nation herself ever since Napoleonic times. Very, very few Frenchmen ever emigrated to America. What French-Americans there are, are mostly immigrated French-Canadiens. Unlike the vast German, Irish, Italian and what not communities, France misses this traditional link, a cultural bridge. Italians introduced pizza, pasta and mafia to America. Francis Coppola can make the Godfather, with Italo-American actors, showing southern Italian traditions to American audiences, and America to Italian audiences. The Irish have their St. Paddy day parades. The British share a language with America (somewhat...) The Northern European countries share a natural familiarity with the dominant WASP culture.

I've always regretted this absense of Franco-Americans. Americans would eat snails if there had been French-Americans. Almost as importantly, I feel it could have served as some sort of buffer, stabiliser as well. And normailiser, working both ways.
.
French-American relations are often too emotional. 'America' plays a bigger part in the French psyche than 'France' in America. But even in America, France is alternatively romanticised ('Paris', 'culture', 'food' and blahblah. Flattering, and no Frenchmen will publicly burst the bubble. But the reality of course is that Paris is full of dogshit, graffiti and imbeciles. Culture consists mostly of downloading the latest American blockbuster and pretentious discussions with your friends about some arthouse movie which they no more than you ever did go and see. And food is bought from the frozen section at Carrefour and microwaved at home). Or France is seen, equally distorted, as...as..well whatever is un-American at some point: lascivious, liberal, surrender monkeys, too militaristic, or not militaristic enough.

Equally, in France opinions about Americans are sometimes distorted to the point of being bizarre: they are thought to be grossly obese, to drive enormous cars, own guns, being superstitious and not able to point out Sudan on a map. None of which is even remotely true, of course. ~;)

More mutual familiarity, more knowledge that the other is just another country like all the others would be benificial.

Louis VI,

I will direct you to a comment that absolutely frames the French relationship with America.

Quote:

---

Never a dull moment in French-Barbarican relations.

---

The common American views France with disdain for its hypocritical elitest snobbery. You have stereotyped yourself with one comment, even if it was an attempt at humor.

I do not mean to insuate that I am insulted, because I am not. The difference between so-called "American arrogance" and French Arrogance is that Americans have pride in their history, achievements, and global relevance. We are a heterogenous multi-cultural society, even if illegal immigration and terrorism have made us a bit xenophobic lately. France, on the otherhand, embraces an Islamic aprtheid, with the masses of middle eastern immigrants seperated and looked down upon.

True, the United States has a tragic history of racial injustice and many of those sentiments unfortunately linger today. However, as a culture we have taken great pains to move forward and embrace our salad bowl of ethnicities and cultures that make up the American experience. The fact that Barak Obama is a serious contender for the presidency demonstrates plainly that we as a culture have moved past a perspective of ethno-cultural superiority.

Clearly, this is not the case with France.

To bring my observations back into the general discussion and point out why my comments above are relevant:

Relations between France and America have changed with the nuclearization of France. Period. Before France had the bomb, America was its most powerful and reliable ally. Since France became a nuclear nation, it no longer had to rely on the United States to maintain its independence. The consequence is that France no longer finds her relationship with the United States strategically necessary. And because you no longer rely on us to ensure your national survival, France displays her true colors: Elitist snobbery. But don't get me wrong, we still like France. We Americans just know your whole nation is full of itself. Which is why we like you.


France is the arrogant peacock of the world. America is the big stupid friendly dog.

We laugh at how stupid you look when you puff up your feathers and strut around, only to be eaten by the nearest predator. On the other hand, you laugh at how stupid we look when we wag our tails and slobber all over everything. We just try to be friendly and useful not realizing that we are breaking everything around us and slobbering all over your clothes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

France is the arrogant peacock of the world.

---

A cock to symbolise France? You mean, an animal that loudly announces his presence first thing in the morning, then spends the rest of the day just strutting around, surveying the nearby chicks and generally being full of himself while on the whole not being very useful whatsoever? :beam:


https://img364.imageshack.us/img364/...rancaisco9.jpg

(The coq, of course, happens to really be the national symbol of france.)

~~~

Quote:

---

The common American views France with disdain for its hypocritical elitest snobbery. You have stereotyped yourself with one comment

---

I personally will never confess to being anything else than an insufferable snob but I feel I must stand up for Frenchmen in general:

Quote:

---

French humour:

The French value Wit (intellectual, hostile, aggressive, sarcastic) as opposed to Humour (emotional, affectionate, gentle, kindly, genial)

Therefore, the French sense of humour is more oriented toward others than themselves, less nonsensical than English humour, more cruel. It is never self-deprecating : it is combative, fueled by ridicule and mockery and it needs a target. The French are great teases, which contribute (for naive foreigners) to their reputation of being rude

A frequent form of humor is to exagerate excessively a statement to illustrate its falsehood : if you are too literal, you just think it is silly. The French love very earthy jokes about sex and bodily functions ; you can hear them in the most unexpected contexts, like at a dinner table with well-educated people. Coluche, whose jokes were literally impossible to translate, was immensely popular. Because their language is so important for them, they love puns, which are hard to follow unless you speak very good French.

---

Richard Hill. Sharks and Custard - The Things That Make Europeans Laugh

Gah! And to think I am actually trying to go easy on the sarcasm in front of this international audience here. :shame:

Excellent posts by all so far on a great thread. I shant write anything scholarly at this point, as I am waiting to hear more from our fellow Non-US org. members before I pitch in. I do have a couple of comments on some of what has been posted so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Interesting.
The Cold War and Nuclear weapons, I believe, is what has ultimately changed the character of global leadership, regardless of where that leadership stems.

---

That was a very astute and thought provoking piece of writing Divinus Arma, and that last remark ties in with this from lars573.

Quote:

---

Which is the natural state of things. That whole leadership of moral superiority was a abberation, a blip, and it's gone.

---

To these I say what the ancient Athenians said, that The Strong do what they can while the weak do what the must.. I often feel that the US is in some danger of becoming as the Athenians were during the long Pelepponesian wars.

Louis VI the Fat posted this quote:


French humour:

Quote:

---

The French value Wit (intellectual, hostile, aggressive, sarcastic) as opposed to Humour (emotional, affectionate, gentle, kindly, genial)

Therefore, the French sense of humour is more oriented toward others than themselves, less nonsensical than English humour, more cruel. It is never self-deprecating : it is combative, fueled by ridicule and mockery and it needs a target. The French are great teases, which contribute (for naive foreigners) to their reputation of being rude

A frequent form of humor is to exagerate excessively a statement to illustrate its falsehood : if you are too literal, you just think it is silly. The French love very earthy jokes about sex and bodily functions ; you can hear them in the most unexpected contexts, like at a dinner table with well-educated people. Coluche, whose jokes were literally impossible to translate, was immensely popular. Because their language is so important for them, they love puns, which are hard to follow unless you speak very good French.

---

I am an American of both French and Canadian/French anscestery, and am as proud as a peacock of it. :beam: This last could describe my familys' attitude in general, and my father's in particular, toward humor. We have, of course been long culturalized to American ways, but I still tend to enjoy a good bit of sarcasm and wit. As for the French habit of complaining, of which I practice upon my fellow beings, remember that Napoleon's best troops, his Old Guard, were called Les Grognards (not sure on the spelling here) by him....and they only ever failed him once.

May I make two requests in this thread, as I find the promise of it's potential to be immense:

1) Might my countrymen respectfully observe Adrian's request to allow non-Americans the floor, at least at the beginning, to allow them the opportunity to state their views and leave them, and feel no burden of defending them, so that we all might learn?

2) May more of the said non-Americans engage the grey matter? I've seen fascinating views of my country from some who have posted in this thread, but I would very much like to see more, especially new views from other cultures and countries already represented. It would be be interesting, for example, to see how Fenrig's, Fragony's and Geoffrey's views contrast with Adrian's. Or whether Brenus would offer a diifferent view then Louis. In short, what is the breadth of viewpoint from various observation points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

https://img364.imageshack.us/img364/...rancaisco9.jpg

---

Interesting choice of a pic, Louis. Was it on purpose that the coq is carrying a Californian bottle of wine?

Excellent thread - I will see if I can add anything useful ... I fear it might take a couple of days though... :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

May I make two requests in this thread, as I find the promise of it's potential to be immense:

1) Might my countrymen respectfully observe Adrian's request to allow non-Americans the floor, at least at the beginning, to allow them the opportunity to state their views and leave them, and feel no burden of defending them, so that we all might learn?

2) May more of the said non-Americans engage the grey matter? I've seen fascinating views of my country from some who have posted in this thread, but I would very much like to see more, especially new views from other cultures and countries already represented. It would be be interesting, for example, to see how Fenrig's, Fragony's and Geoffrey's views contrast with Adrian's. Or whether Brenus would offer a diifferent view then Louis. In short, what is the breadth of viewpoint from various observation points.

---

Of course. I didn't mean to digress or take away from the thread points. Please let us hear more. :focus: :sorry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Of course. I didn't mean to digress or take away from the thread points. Please let us hear more. :focus: :sorry:

---

No, no. You misunderstood. My post wasn't directed at you, or at anyone who's posted already for that matter. A thousand pardons :bow:. I more meant to uncircle the wagons before they ever got circled. :2thumbsup:

Come on, bring on the Americans! I, for one, welcome the take of my leadership overlords on all this.

(Yes, I understand what you mean, Don. This is the internets, so if at all possible I too would hope this thread doesn't degenerate into six pages of meticulous non-discussion over an entirely irrelevant triviality that was mentioned in some post somewhere)

~~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Interesting choice of a pic, Louis. Was it on purpose that the coq is carrying a Californian bottle of wine?

---

Curses!
I got the pic from a French website that I can't link to (:sweatdrop: ), but the careful observer, or those with giant monitors, can read the webadress in the stamp. Some scheming Americans must've photoshopped in a pic of Californian wine to backstab-pwn us.

~~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rotorgun

I am an American of both French and Canadian/French anscestery

---

:jumping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

(Yes, I understand what you mean, Don. This is the internets, so if at all possible I too would hope this thread doesn't degenerate into six pages of meticulous non-discussion over an entirely irrelevant triviality that was mentioned in some post somewhere)

---

To late, europeans have posted. Better luck next time.

:laugh4:

Adrian gave a good synopsis of the Dutch perspective. I'll add that we're a small country and not influential on an absolute scale, and most of us don't harbor pretentions about it. We can be fiercely critical of the USA, but at the end everybody admits that as far as military superpowers go you could do a lot worse than America.

That said, I usually get the impression that the way Dutch people feel about particular Presidents is more affected by selective news coverage and personality than anything else. If and when people still talk about Bill Clinton they'll usually say that he was a good one, considerate of international diplomacy and a harmless playboy. Most of us have no idea what operation Desert Fox was (but then again I don't think that sets us apart) while we think that Bush was wrong for targetting Iraq for it's supposed WMD program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Adrian gave a good synopsis of the Dutch perspective. I'll add that we're a small country and not influential on an absolute scale, and most of us don't harbor pretentions about it. We can be fiercely critical of the USA, but at the end everybody admits that as far as military superpowers go you could do a lot worse than America.

That said, I usually get the impression that the way Dutch people feel about particular Presidents is more affected by selective news coverage and personality than anything else. If and when people still talk about Bill Clinton they'll usually say that he was a good one, considerate of international diplomacy and a harmless playboy. Most of us have no idea what operation Desert Fox was (but then again I don't think that sets us apart) while we think that Bush was wrong for targetting Iraq for it's supposed WMD program.

---

Well, as far as I can say, this pretty much sums up the Belgian point of view as well.
Though I'm far too young to know anything about our historic relations with the US post WWII to which Adrian referred for the Netherlands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Oh, one other thing. A peculiarity is that there is no such thing as a big French-American community. France has been an immigrant nation herself ever since Napoleonic times. Very, very few Frenchmen ever emigrated to America. What French-Americans there are, are mostly immigrated French-Canadiens. Unlike the vast German, Irish, Italian and what not communities, France misses this traditional link, a cultural bridge. Italians introduced pizza, pasta and mafia to America. Francis Coppola can make the Godfather, with Italo-American actors, showing southern Italian traditions to American audiences, and America to Italian audiences. The Irish have their St. Paddy day parades. The British share a language with America (somewhat...) The Northern European countries share a natural familiarity with the dominant WASP culture.

---

A host of good points, Louis, though colonial America picked up quite a good number of French -- mostly Huguenot fleeing -- but unlike the English, Spanish, Dutch, and Swedish colonies that ended up forming the USA, most of the French colonial territory we acquired was thinly populated with Frenchmen and descendants therof. As a consequence, there were no blocs of Frenchmen or dominantly French sub-culture areas. Only New Orleans had a dominantly "french" culture (with a host of other influences) and only Louisiana and parts of Maine had largely French population centers -- and neither was part of the original "13" who set the stamp on things.

I think the greatest French influence is mostly in the Mississippi River Delta and along the Gulf Coast (New Orleans to Pensacola).
And we do have a French holiday, Mardi Gras.

Just saying...

Northern New England & upstate New York also have a large French contingent. Maine & Vermont especially. I still have fond memories of the Chinquette girls up in the town my folks vacation in. :kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A host of good points, Louis, though colonial America picked up quite a good number of French -- mostly Huguenot fleeing -- but unlike the English, Spanish, Dutch, and Swedish colonies that ended up forming the USA, most of the French colonial territory we acquired was thinly populated with Frenchmen and descendants therof. As a consequence, there were no blocs of Frenchmen or dominantly French sub-culture areas. Only New Orleans had a dominantly "french" culture (with a host of other influences) and only Louisiana and parts of Maine had largely French population centers -- and neither was part of the original "13" who set the stamp on things.

---

Only a technicality, but the Swedish immigrants were coming with the population boom and following poor harvest years during the nineteenth century, not from our shortlived american colony. :juggle:

Don't know enough on older Swedish politics to make an accurate survey.

I had to be away on short notice. Missed my own thread for a week, dang! I'm reading up already. Americans please do post, Europeans need some time to answer (if at all) because my demand on them is rather tall. I see good stuff all over the place, a credit to the .Org once again.

Will respond at some point, honest. Who could possibly say the Dutch are over-represented?