Kate buys into this strange "hate Frechy" craze, which a sizable minority seems to equate with loving the USA. If you'd just consider the source when reading her comments, you'd save yourself a lot of annoyance, and avoid throwing pearls to swine.
Kate, that's a metaphor: no need to remind me of the many ways in which you are not swine-like. Or, for that matter, that your husband is, was, or speaks French, or whatever it was you last used to try to justify your support of a fashionable bigotry.
In a message dated 11/13/2004 9:19:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>This is so astonishingly unfounded and rude that it cannot be ignored.
>Although there is a great deal more to "Western Civilization" than
>military violence, that violence is genuinely part of it. It is simply
>part of history.
>Moreover, there is no contradiction whatever between critiqueing the
>violence and accepting the technology and the enlightenment inheritance
>of "free speech" as an ideal.
>Nor is there any remote connection between that critique and a desire to
>have enslaved women.
>Nor is it at all certain that the United States would be in existence to
>allow all this embarassing chauvinism had not France supported us and
>helped us in the Revolutionary War. Nor would all that Enlightenment
>philosophy about individual rights and freedoms have been so powerful
>had not the French thought up a good deal of it--despite the bloody
>outcome in their own revolution.
>It is difficult to determine which of these responses is more misguided
>or less aware of history.
>Why cannot we discuss Eliot on this since "Tradition and the Individual
>Talent" is a key text in this notion of a European "mind" and certainly
>France is a central part of it? If you read Eliot, how can you not
>notice his extreme reliance on French poetry in his early work?
>Whatever else he was, he was not provincial. Why do you think he went
>to Paris over and over? Why do you think so many Americans in the early
>20th C went to live in Paris?
>"You know nothing? Do you [read] nothing? Do you remember
>I note some names from a text in "Readings in Western Civilization":
>Rousseau, Corneille, Voltaire, Condorcet.
>Condorcet's "The Progress of the Human Mind" is described by the editor
>(I make no claim to French scholarship): "A great monument of liberal
>thought, it is a summary of the major ideas of the Enlightenment, ideas
>that have exerted a dominating influence on Western thought in the 19th
>and 20th centuries."
>It is not a recent textbook, but none of those names has ceased to
>matter. Can we not have civilized discussions based in some actual text
>and history? Words like "moron" and "stupid" and assumptions like the
>idea that France is not an absolutely central part of Western
>philosophy, literature, art, and culture simply waste words for the
>purpose of--of what? Gratuitous meanness?
>>>> [log in to unmask] 11/13/04 7:10 PM >>>
>No doubt Carrol realizes this fact. And, he even puts down France as a
>of Western Civilization. I wonder then, does he want us to live like
>in Arab countries, led by a Shah, a King or the like, where there is not
>education to be had outside of the very basics and the study of Islam,
>the women cannot work, drive or choose their own husbands in some cases,
>the majority of people are poorer than we can imagine. The explantion
>Carrol may be that he dreams of harems.
>In a message dated 11/13/2004 4:53:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>Jacek Niecko wrote:
>> Hasn't it occurred to you, you moron, that it is because of the
>> civilization" for which you have so much stupid contempt, that today
>> able to transmit such stupid garbage.
>> Jacek Niecko
>> Washington DC
>Temper temper. Better check your blood pressure. :-)