France Upholds Law That Smooths History

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_re_eu/france_gilding_history




France Upholds Law That Smooths History
By NATHALIE SCHUCK, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 29, 4:02 PM ET

PARIS - France's parliament voted Tuesday to uphold a law that puts an upbeat spin on the country's painful colonial past, ignoring complaints from historians and the former French territory of Algeria.

The law, passed quietly this year, requires school textbooks to address France's "positive role" in its former colonies.

France's lower house, in a 183-94 vote, rejected an effort by the opposition Socialists to kill the law. Passage would have been unusual, since the effort to overturn the law came from the conservative government's political enemies.

The law has embarrassed conservative President Jacques Chirac and threatens to delay the signing of a friendship treaty between France and the North African nation of Algeria. France's one-time colonial jewel won independence in 1962 after a brutal eight-year conflict France only recently called a war.

But sad to see that the so called "enlightened" nations of the world still can't own up to their bloody past.

...but we were taught all about what happened to the Phillipines, etc. during the Spanish American War.

to great lengths to teach us about U.S. aggression against Mexico from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s and the genocide against native Americans.:sarcasm:

I see that the French are taking their cue from the Japanese nowadays when it comes to facing up to their past. (I.e., just pretend no atrocities were committed!) Not to call their kettle black--the US record on acknowledging the less than stellar chapters of its past isn't exactly perfect. But nonetheless...

Disappointing



Robert

history, except when it gets too loud and embarrassing? Oh.

.

The ugly French right has been rearing it's ugly head recently, and even many on the left in France are bigoted against their own citizens of north african descent.

Nationalism is a poison, which constructs imaginary demarcation lines between human beings, pitting oppressed social groups against one another.

Everybody thinks Abe Lincoln fought the South to "free" the slaves. I don't think so! See my signature....

...obviously. That particular quote is part of every high school US history class I've ever dealt with.

Ask any average American why we fought the Civil War. Most of them (not all) will claim we fought the war to end slavery. LOL!

I don't dispute that our education system is a mess. However, I don't necessarily think it glosses over all of the bad in our history. I've never heard of anyone teaching the positive effects of slavery in K-12.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I was not aware until AFTER college graduation that Lincoln's primary goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to save the Union. He freed the slaves ONLY as a military tactic to win the war against the South and preserve the Union. My schooling did not teach me about this truth. In fact, Lincoln was a racist who thought African Americans were "inferior" to Whites, just as the founding fathers thought.

France distorts its racist past, just as America does.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I was not aware until AFTER college graduation that Lincoln's primary goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to save the Union. He freed the slaves ONLY as a military tactic to win the war against the South and preserve the Union. My schooling did not teach me about this truth. In fact, Lincoln was a racist who thought African Americans were "inferior" to Whites, just as the founding fathers thought.

France distorts its racist past, just as America does.

>In fact, Lincoln was a racist who thought African Americans were
>"inferior" to Whites, just as the founding fathers thought.

It's interesting to note that while he did believe this (or at least said it in public during his early career) he also believed that regardless of this, blacks should have the same rights under the constitution as whites which, for his day, wasn't exactly a conservative position on race.

Although I've heard all that yammer about "States' Rights" here in Texas. And I've heard a few Yankees posting here--"We should have let the South go!" Sure, slavery might have ended anyway. What's a few more generations born & dying enslaved?

The only good result to come out of that bloody mess was the end of slavery.

The "good side" of slavery is still taught in certain schools (& by certain homeschoolers):

www.theocracywatch.org/schools_slavery_booklet.htm

he gives a long musical rant about some tradition and then says "on the other hand" but finally he gets a situation where he says "there is no other hand!" Point being that sometimes there are not two sides to a story. Some things, like slavery, are just wrong. Yes, some slaveowners were "more humane" than others, but the institution itself was just wrong.

You know: "But our slaves were happy slaves," and all that. You may not find it quite so blatant, but unless all our history classes are teaching the essential brutality of slavery, in fairly graphic terms, they might just as well go this route.

from his second inaugural address:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.


why do you think the Southern states left in the first place??

If you can (re)write your history, removing all the bad - the crimes, the murders, the tryanny, the oppression, etc - then you can control how future generations view their country - their world. You shape their thinking - you shape what they believe...you can control them because you control their thoughts. You write their past to control their future.

It's more than just the victors writing the history - it shows why the victors write it - not just to hide the bad - but to control the present and the future.

So let's see, nazi's = very bad. french occupation of algeria = not so bad.

just trying to get the new spin down in my head.

Oy fucking vey.