from: http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/06/26/f-k-anti-science/

What do you like about it?

This is something I'm well acquainted with so I'm curious to hear your reaction.

something i had only heard for the first time. I had known that the french typically think of french as superior, but not in these terms.

Is it not entirely atypical to think that your superiority can be spread and adopted by others? Perhaps in some cases of religions this happens, particularly Islam and perhaps Christianity, but most national cultures don't seem to have this quality... even while the retain a high sense of their own importance in the global human narrative...

Not to make this all about American exceptional-ism... which i somehow suspect this thread will quickly devolve into.

It's my understanding that the British largely had a system of indirect rule, where they kept local traditions in tact. I'm not sure how that implies racial inferiority. Certainly where they sent settlers, some racial polices were implemented, but that wasn't the doing of the Empire per se (I'm thinking southern Africa here). In fact Britain opposed Rhodesia's UDI on that basis.

The French were hardly the only European colonial power to think they were spreading "culture" to the "primitives". The same can be said of the Germans, English, and especially the Spanish. Perhaps the French had a SLIGHTLY less commercial bent to their colonialism, but that's a pretty terribly thought out quote. Somebody needs to spend some time studying history.

German policy in Africa was not racially inclusive in the slightest. There is a difference between a power thinking they are civilizing the 'primitives' (your word) vs thinking that any 'primitive' can become a full fledged and equal citizen so long as they adopt the empire's culture.

Kinda off topic but somewhat related due to the racial equality is, the Lewis and Clark Expedition had the first case of an African-American having equal voting rights within America.

Yes, France, UK, and even Portugal all had interesting approaches to race and the local culture, approaches that aren't what you might have thought, though still ultimately racist.

As an American from the south I think of racism in terms of southern racists, but there are other kinds of racism towards black people, particularly the kind of racism practiced by the colonial administrators. It's interesting to study. In some ways these policy differences often contributed to different post-independence experiences.

Putin, you couldn't be more wrong when you way German policy in Africa was not racially inclusive. The greatest success that German enjoyed in the entire First World War was the campaign of Lettow Vorbeck in German East Africa, modern day Tanzania. Lettow Vorbeck made Askaris officers, had his surgeons treat both Askaris and Europeans in the same wards, and called his German soldiers that they were Africans. He also spoke to his Askaris in their tongue and not in German. Lettow Vorbeck is considered the most enlightened European officer in Africa in both his policy and his ideolgoy.

I assume Emac is just ignorant of the German genocide against the Hereros in South West Africa. One friendly general doesn't make up for a colonial policy which, while not the worst colonial adventure by any means, was far from inclusive. Togoland was never going to be a part of Germany in the way Algeria or ultimately French Guiana, etc became part of France.

I am afraid that colonial racism is not limited to old Europe. Gore Vidal is rather good on this -

''An American warship Maine, blew up in Havana harbor, we held Spain responsible; thus, we got what John Hay called “a splendid little war”. We would liberate Cuba, drive Spain from the Caribbean, As for the Pacific, even before the Maine sunk, Roosevelt ordered Dewey and his fleet to the Spanish Philippines – just in case. Spain promptly collapsed and we inherited their pacific and Caribbean colonies. Admiral Mahan’s plan was working triumphantly.

In time we allowed Cuba the appearance of freedom while holding on to Puerto Rico. Then President McKinley, after an in depth talk with God, decided that we should also keep Philippines, in order, he said , to Christianize them. When reminded that the Philippines are Roman Catholics, the president said, exactly. We must Christianize them. Although Philippines nationalist had been allies against Spain’s, we promptly betrayed them and their leader, Emilio Aguinaldo. As a result, it took us several years to conquer the Philippines and tens – some say hundreds – of thousands Filipinos died that our empire might grow.''

Then Teddy Roosevelt himself neatly summed the matter up with ths (!)

“every argument can be said of Aguinaldo could be said of Sitting Bull”

http://withonespast.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/an-excerpt-from-gore-vidals-imperial-america/

I disagree with this statement. It might be true in some places. The most consistant would be the North American continent. But in the end the French Imperial endeavor was just that, an imperial endaevor. The strategies employed by the French had little to do with any true difference in philosophy, it was a strategy designed to serve their goals in the great game. The French had a population and continental military presence that was unmatched until the unification of Germany. Their goal was different than the British who were late comers in the game and more focused on taking territory and defending it (from native inhabitants and other europeans) with force. By contrast In North America their main goal was to hinder British expansion so they tied together Native coalitions under their paternal control as they reaped the rewards of the fur trade. Likewise, elsewhere the French colonies were cast-offs from the other imperial powers and bullwarks against their rivals.

If you seriously want to argue that the French didn't see their native subjects as "inferior" I think you would have to completely ignore French actions in Algeria, Haiti, and French Indochina.

To be fair, the southern Philippines were and are largely Muslim. So, while still an absurd mission, McKinley didn't speak as silly as Gore Vidal makes him out to. And we also ought to think of the alternative to annexation. An independent Philippine republic would likely have been taken by Japan or Germany in short order, and neither of those countries would have given up their hold on the islands as easily as America did. Independence was promised by the Jones Act of 1916. And we left right on schedule in 1946. Can you even imagine another imperial power behaving like that? The American entry in the Philippines is nothing for us to be proud of, but as far as these things go it wasn't that bad.

what a profound statement fulham YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN

I know that in regards to North America, rather early in France's imperial endeavours, the Native Americans were often treated better by the French, and many fur traders took Indian wives and often learned the languages of the native tribes. I believe I am correct in saying that France had far more Indian allies than England in the French and Indian War.

Every time Fulham does one of these things I think of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs

You know Fulham has out-hackneyed himself when he makes a statement against the United States and Invictus agrees.

I agreed?

"I believe I am correct in saying that France had far more Indian allies than England in the French and Indian War. "

They did because their strategy demanded it and their imperial program was built toward winning allies. They played into kinship ties and played mediator among waring Native tribes in a way the British never really figured out how to do.

If the French needed a colonial outpost in North America you would have seen a different approach. But the bottom line is that North America was a backwater to them, and at the time their holdings in India and Haiti were seen as their true jewels.

You agreed that they were imperial, just in your true rudyard kipling loving fashion you claimed that we were better to those we conquered

It seems strange to talk the 17th century rivalry between Great Britain and France in North America in the same discussion as New Imperialism topics. The French Revolution changed most things a lot.

I'm sorry, point to the place where we are talking about New Imperialism? The first post surely did not. I did not click on the link.

But if that is the case, still my point remains, If France was such an enlightened imperial overlord, how do you account for the drawn out, bloody nature of the French colonies wars for Independence?

Try reading better. All I claimed was we were better than other potential conquerors since we promised independence very early and then acted on it. Also we need to consider what likely would have happened to the Philippines if the United States hadn't annexed it. In 1900 Germany or Japan would have had no qualms about annexing or at best making a puppet of an independent Philippine republic. Even if all the rest of history was unchanged that probably would have delayed the islands' independence till the 1960s as they would have been a League of Nations Mandate or a UN Trust Territory.

Keep on waving that flag as you go look up the Moro Crater Massacre Gunga Din

Do you know what New Imperialism is? It refers to imperialism from roughly after Napoleon till WWI. Since we were talking about German colonies in Africa and French ones in Africa and Asia much of the discussion was firmly in that period.

again where the fuck was New Imperialism even mentioned in the first post? What are you on about? The only possible thing that would differentiate eras is the mention of Democracy, but I fully believed that was a blanket statement about French Imperialism throughout history.

Remember how I said there was nothing to be proud of in our entry to the Philippines? My whole point is that the good thing was that we left, and the entire period from 1916 to 1946 (apart from WWII) was dominated by how that happens. I don't pretend that America acted nobly in subduing the islands, just that within twenty years it came to its senses and started the process of leaving. That didn't happen to the Europeans until the second half of the century.

Putin33, groverloaf, jabberjawsjr, Thucydides, and Emac were steering it to New Imperialism topics. Perhaps we just interpret the quote differently, but from what I know of French imperialism the natures of what they tried to do in Africa and Asia was quite different from the fur trapping expedition of their first colonial empire. Quebec was never a French province, but Algeria divided into departments and as French as Marseilles. At least legally.