France has traditionally had close ties to the Arab world. This is not my area of expertise, but the reasons are historical and geographical. In the evolution of societies, cultural and economic exchange typically brings mutual understanding and progress. Domestically, France has a considerable Muslim population, consisting of both traditional and assimilated elements. This diversity can create social tensions, as in the Islamic head scarf controversy, while contributing to the overall dynamism of the culture. After all, since when have religious and cultural homogeneity (envisioned as a lost "golden age" by nationalists of a racist stripe) ever led to a robust and resilient culture?
In the cartoon images of France seen in some racist, right-wing web sites, France is called the capital of "Eurabia" and an incubator for terrorism. "Enjoy Sha'ria France. I hear the Pierre Cardin and YSL burkas will be stunning at next year's prete a porte" (sic) is one comment posted on "Little Green Footballs." In these "quartiers mal frequentes" of cyberspace, France’s close relations with the Muslim world, instead of being viewed as an asset and a resource, are viewed as a taint. This line of thinking can range from the hysterical to the delusional: "Conquest by immigration does not happen peacefully. It is accompanied by violence, as the leaders of the immigrant masses must maintain discipline in their ranks and prevent assimilation. They can accomplish this only by ratcheting up the violence as their numbers grow. We have seen only the beginning of the violence that most likely will precede the Islamization of Europe" from "The Cassandra Page" web site is but one example. In this view, the five million-plus Muslims living, working and raising families in France would be plotting an overthrow of some notion of a "pure" France that never existed. How many French citizens today (or fifty years ago) could truly say that they are descendants of "nos ancetres les Gaulois"?
When the US leaders contemplated invading Iraq, it might have been prudent to consult with a range of allies with more experience with the Muslim world, and indeed within the Muslim world. Instead, the decision was presented to the US and the world as a "fait accompli." The US is a sovereign nation, but nothing prevents us as a nation from obtaining the best information available before taking the momentous step of going to war. The French might have told us to expect a tenacious insurgency, a recruitment opportunity for terrorists abroad, and a deadly long-term engagement. Since Wolfwitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Rice, et al had already made the decision to go to war, this information, correct as it has proven to be, was not welcomed. Not only was it not welcomed, but to express it was to become an enemy of Western civilization and of democracy. Thanks to the tone set from above, we have nutball extremists excoriating France not only for disagreeing with the US in this instance, but for supposedly throwing out the welcome mat for regiments of Islamist terrorists. Based on my direct observation, nothing could be further from the truth.
Like the US, France is a sovereign country. If the French people choose to consider the facts and follow what their direct experience and their knowledge tells them is true rather than being bullied into surrendering their freedom of self-determination by a superpower . . . that sounds like democracy in action. Let freedom ring!
Interesting stuff. I will try to bring it to the attention of other francophiles.
I would like to remind all that the American Association of Teachers of French has an advocacy program:
Ideas for French Language & Culture Advocacy in the US
http://www.utm.edu/staff/globeg/advofr.shtml
TBob
Posted by: TenesseeBob Peckham | June 20, 2005 at 02:36 PM