So Macron Hates "Woke" Blames America

[Kyriakos]

Is there any talk in France about what is going on with the prospect of a military alliance between France and Greece?
Because here the view is that our own ludicrous prime minister is to blame for that not happening. And we still bought a lot of weapons from France.

 

[AdrienIer]

Is there any talk in France about what is going on with the prospect of a military alliance between France and Greece?

Not really

 

[Camikaze]

The article in the opening post has been written by someone who doesn't know much about France, and wrongly analyses the French society according to American values. That's natural, we all do that kind of mistakes, but it doesn't work this way. You just can't understand a country if you don't know its History, what it's been through and why is it the way it is nowadays, and France is no exception to this. Universalism is at the core of the French model of society, it's actually what defines the Republic in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph of the French constitution. The reason for this is because universalism is what allowed the country to become peaceful again after centuries of civil wars between protestants and catholics, it is what allowed emancipation of the Jews, abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. So in our case, according to our History, universalism makes sense, which doesn't mean that is necessarily true in other countries having a different History.

This works as explanation for why the article may misidentify pro-universalist musings as alt-right, but not as a justification for the sentiments which it attributes to Macron (if they are in fact true - I note your comments about it not being reported elsewhere). To the extent that France's uniquely universalist tradition is used to perpetuate discrimination against minorities (e.g. Muslims), it's just flat out bad and shouldn't be hand-waved as "we do it differently here", or seen as a legitimate bulwark to societal divisions.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Not sure I can quite understand Macron; after all he is French.

But I get a little tired of expressions such as "woke" and "black lives matter" just
crossing the atlantic and then being unthinkingly blanket applied, as if the UK is a
part of the USA; i.e. without taking into context a number of historical differences.

And I can imagine, this also annoying many patriotic French people.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Is there any talk in France about what is going on with the prospect of a military alliance between France and Greece?
Because here the view is that our own ludicrous prime minister is to blame for that not happening. And we still bought a lot of weapons from France.

Sorry if I'm contradicting @AdrienIer here but yes clearly, after the crisis on Greek territorial waters with Erdogan we've seen that Greece was getting closer to France. More broadly speaking, I'd say that European Mediterranean countries share common strategic interests at EU's Southern border which aren't necessarily easy to address within NATO (particularly because Turkey is itself a member of NATO).

Now, it's also been heard that Eastern European countries have little care about Mediterranean security issues and are all obsessed about protecting themselves from Russia. So there is that topic, whether the EU should protect more its Southern border or its Eastern border, which I find a bit silly as I believe Europe should be capable of doing both, but is enough sensitive to divide the EU on such a strategic matter. Of course, this debate is only going on because Obama/Trump wanted to retreat the US from Europe, this may change (or not) once Biden's intentions on the topic will be clearer. Whatever would be the solution, what is sure is that there are strong instability issues at the borders of the EU in general which must be addressed.

 

[Marla_Singer]

This works as explanation for why the article may misidentify pro-universalist musings as alt-right, but not as a justification for the sentiments which it attributes to Macron (if they are in fact true - I note your comments about it not being reported elsewhere). To the extent that France's uniquely universalist tradition is used to perpetuate discrimination against minorities (e.g. Muslims), it's just flat out bad and shouldn't be hand-waved as "we do it differently here", or seen as a legitimate bulwark to societal divisions.

Not sure I can quite understand Macron; after all he is French.

But I get a little tired of expressions such as "woke" and "black lives matter" just
crossing the atlantic and then being unthinkingly blanket applied, as if the UK is a
part of the USA; i.e. without taking into context a number of historical differences.

And I can imagine, this also annoying many patriotic French people.

I don't believe this is a matter of patriotism, but rather of different models of society which emerged from different Historical experience, as well as different cultural philosophies about how to live together which are probably linked to religion.

Even if Europe is largely dechristianized, this has stayed, and the idea of universalism of mankind, which is pretty strong in catholicism, is probably less in protestant societies. See for instance the American insistance to divide people in races which is very alien to catholic-background cultures. Those cultural differences are the reason why I generally feel insecure talking about such topics with Americans or Brits (mostly) because they are often pretty confident in the idea there cannot be any other model of society than theirs.

 

[Arwon]

Macron is indeed a progressist, but he's also a universalist. The article in the OP assumes that whoever would oppose to identity politics belongs necessarily to the alt-right. I don't know in other countries but that's not how it works in France. Many people among the French left, even among the radical left, considers that identity politics is divisive by nature, that opposing people according to who they are isn't the proper solution to fight discriminations, and that it causes more harm than good to national cohesion. As a matter of fact, events of recent months in the United States have shown such a fear isn't entirely baseless.

Other countries certainly have left wing or pseudo left wing white dudes who dismiss other people's politics as "identity politics" too

 

[Marla_Singer]

Other countries certainly have left wing or pseudo left wing white dudes who dismiss other people's politics as "identity politics" too

Is identity politics a progressive idea to begin with? I personally believe that politically opposing interests according to identities is a social regression. I don't see any difference between Malcolm X and Donald Trump in their deep perception of society outside the colour of skin they support. So to me, alt-right is actually a form of identity politics.

Politically organizing a society based on communities, religions, ethnicities, races or any other forms of tribalism can only stirs up conflicts between those as they are opposing their interest according to such a line. A society needs to be more inclusive, in protecting people's individual rights and focusing in building a shared open society offering the same opportunities to everyone in order to see such conflicts being reduced. I found that idea based on past Historical experience, particularly integration of the Jewish and Protestant communities within the French society. This is to me what a progressive society should actually be about.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course it isn't. But it's a temperament of this pestilent-ass year.

Ethnicity gets melted in the US all the time, particularly as people become "successful." The great purge of Germanic culture a little over 100 years ago comes to mind. Other minorities are getting more successful and bigger shares of the demographic pie. They melt too. Great in some ways, but really bad when they lose the community structures that hold them together like churches and local governance and news. Backlash is appropriate. People who watch national identity politics all the time instead of reading local news that they could theoretically influence with their own lives is a recipe for division and neurosis. The bigger constant loud culture is crass, material, and godless(as it ever was, merely share of power changes). Everything becomes too big to do, so it's just something to hate. Unlike sweeping up after the School Board meeting, where the one guy you really don't like on the Facebook feed picks up a broom and sweeps up with you, because he's useful, despite being "the sort of person Americans wouldn't want their daughter to date because politics" or whatever breathless moronism is clickbaiting the hatescrollers today.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't see any difference between Malcolm X and Donald Trump in their deep perception of society outside the colour of skin they support.

This is certainly a take.

But at least it's more understandable than pidgeonholing people on what politics they watch, as others have done *

* people do this all the time, of course. But it's not as understandable when it comes from a regular perspective of railing against people shouting about their beliefs for Internet points. Which is exactly what this is.

 

[aelf]

The problem with ignoring identity politics altogether is then failing to address the real grievances of minority groups and fostering a cultural hegemony (the critique of which is rooted in European intellectual tradition).

 

[Marla_Singer]

The problem with ignoring identity politics altogether is then failing to address the real grievances of minority groups and fostering a cultural hegemony (the critique of which is rooted in European intellectual tradition).

That is certainly a risk, and very likely the reason why French populist right tends to newly embrace universalism and secularship they historically rejected yet in which they find a new interest in nowadays.

However, I remain convinced that playing the same populist game as the alt-right but in order to defend minorities instead is the wrong answer. As told earlier, I believe the good answer is about looking for building a cohesive society in which anyone can thrive indifferently from their background (and not thanks to their background). Let's just say that I'm more in Martin Luther King's side rather than Malcolm X's side. I actually agree with @Farm Boy when he told this is generally achieved through socio-economical success, that's why I believe this should be the more inclusive point to focus on.

 

[Gorbles]

However, I remain convinced that playing the same populist game as the alt-right but in order to defend minorities instead is the wrong answer.

This isn't an answer in the first place though. There is no left-of-centre equivalent where people speculate on the subhumanity of white folks or the like (I mean, maybe there's like two or three tankies out there that are That High on their love for the CPC, I dunno. But there's no relevant grouping or notable ideology). It's inherently a different dynamic. Your belief here smacks of the (understandable) mistake of conflating treatment of a majority with treatment of a minority.

Harm can be done to a single person regardless of race, ethos, creed, gender, etc. But in terms of demographics, the majority demographic is protected generally in ways minorities are often not. You can't just reverse the situation and claim it's the same, because contextually it isn't. Especially if invoking someone like MLK, who is very selectively quoted in this day and age when in reality he espoused some harsh truths that often go unquoted.

 

[Marla_Singer]

This isn't an answer in the first place though. There is no left-of-centre equivalent where people speculate on the subhumanity of white folks or the like (I mean, maybe there's like two or three tankies out there that are That High on their love for the CPC, I dunno. But there's no relevant grouping or notable ideology). It's inherently a different dynamic. Your belief here smacks of the (understandable) mistake of conflating treatment of a majority with treatment of a minority.

Harm can be done to a single person regardless of race, ethos, creed, gender, etc. But in terms of demographics, the majority demographic is protected generally in ways minorities are often not. You can't just reverse the situation and claim it's the same, because contextually it isn't. Especially if invoking someone like MLK, who is very selectively quoted in this day and age when in reality he espoused some harsh truths that often go unquoted.

Rights of minorities should be protected at individual level, not necessarily at community level with special laws only applying for a certain community. Historically speaking, it has never worked and has only made conflicts last longer.

See for instance the fact Britain somehow failed at building a cohesive British identity despite ethnic political representation in parties such as SNP, Sinn Fein or Finn Gael. Nowadays, identity conflict in Northern Ireland is still socially well-alive, and Scottish independence movement is at its all-time high despite Scotland having ever becoming more autonomous.

Another interesting example would be the Ottoman Empire, in which social order was entirely structured according to ethnicities, in an exceptionally diverse context. Basically, Muslim Turks were in leading social conditions, and all other ethnicities or religions were politically-organized with specific rights. When the Empire collapsed, all the newly-founded countries wanted to build similar ethnically-organized societies but in which their own ethnicity would be at the top. This has lead to the worst ethnic conflicts everywhere the Ottoman Empire used to rule: from the Balkans to Libya, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

On the other hand, countries which succeeded to build an inclusive shared identity, which is considered complementary to their specific identity and not conflicting with it, ultimately solved their former identity problems. In Western Europe, historical ethnic conflicts mostly faded out in all countries where basically citizenship and nationality are considered mutually interchangeable. They persist however in Britain (Scotland rejecting Britishness), in Spain (Catalans rejectings Spanishness) or in Belgium (Flemish people rejecting Belgianness). However, despite heavy socio-economical regional inequalities in a country like Italy, the fact everyone feels Italian holds the country. Germany is a similar example where everyone feels German, no matter protestant or catholic (even in a very specific region like Bavaria).

 

[Gorbles]

I mean, England rejects Scottish-ness, so I don't think you're evaluating the context well there. Issues with the Union are due to numerous mistakes made, often by England (don't get me started on Northern Ireland / RoI in general). I can't speak to a solution because these things go back decades and indeed centuries in certain ways, but it's not "rejecting British-ness". I wouldn't even begin to guess at what that is (being British myself). Do you have some kind of definition that might help me understand?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Rights of minorities should be protected at individual level, not necessarily at community level with special laws only applying for a certain community.

I agree.

I mean, England rejects Scottish-ness..

I don't reject Scottishness.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't reject Scottishness.

My goodness, a talking country. How rare.

 

[Samson]

This isn't an answer in the first place though. There is no left-of-centre equivalent where people speculate on the subhumanity of white folks or the like (I mean, maybe there's like two or three tankies out there that are That High on their love for the CPC, I dunno. But there's no relevant grouping or notable ideology).

He did specify Malcolm X:

the original peoples of the world were black and that white people were a race of "devils" created by a scientist named Yakub (the Biblical and Qur'anic Jacob) on the Greek island of Patmos.

It is a tiny minority, and not at all representative of the the BLM movement in the way that white supremacy is of the alt-right, but it very much exists,

 

[Gorbles]

He did specify Malcolm X:

It is a tiny minority, and not at all representative of the the BLM movement in the way that white supremacy is of the alt-right, but it very much exists,

Generalising black nationalism by predicating it on specific beliefs that don't always align with left-to-right ideologies is a mistake, I feel. BLM (at least as popularised and shown by recent events) is inherently at ends with black nationalism because it still sees the demographic as integrated into (US, and other) society. It's not a separatist movement.

Regardless my point was more that it's not an answer, because even if it exists as a tiny minority, then that's not an answer either. It existing doesn't mean it is being used in any real capacity, right?

Also, not really sticking up for the Nation of Islam here or anything like that, but the belief (of black separatism) that black people are hindered in a white society kinda has an understandable basis to it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Rights of minorities should be protected at individual level, not necessarily at community level with special laws only applying for a certain community. Historically speaking, it has never worked and has only made conflicts last longer.

See for instance the fact Britain somehow failed at building a cohesive British identity despite ethnic political representation in parties such as SNP, Sinn Fein or Finn Gael. Nowadays, identity conflict in Northern Ireland is still socially well-alive, and Scottish independence movement is at its all-time high despite Scotland having ever becoming more autonomous.

Another interesting example would be the Ottoman Empire, in which social order was entirely structured according to ethnicities, in an exceptionally diverse context. Basically, Muslim Turks were in leading social conditions, and all other ethnicities or religions were politically-organized with specific rights. When the Empire collapsed, all the newly-founded countries wanted to build similar ethnically-organized societies but in which their own ethnicity would be at the top. This has lead to the worst ethnic conflicts everywhere the Ottoman Empire used to rule: from the Balkans to Libya, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

On the other hand, countries which succeeded to build an inclusive shared identity, which is considered complementary to their specific identity and not conflicting with it, ultimately solved their former identity problems. In Western Europe, historical ethnic conflicts mostly faded out in all countries where basically citizenship and nationality are considered mutually interchangeable. They persist however in Britain (Scotland rejecting Britishness), in Spain (Catalans rejectings Spanishness) or in Belgium (Flemish people rejecting Belgianness). However, despite heavy socio-economical regional inequalities in a country like Italy, the fact everyone feels Italian holds the country. Germany is a similar example where everyone feels German, no matter protestant or catholic (even in a very specific region like Bavaria).

The Ottoman government wasn't organised on ethnicity but on religion. Power over and responsibility for their congregations was given to the various Orthodox Patriarchs etc. They had no power over a Greek who converted to Islam for example.
There are many examples of non-Turks who rose to high rank in Ottoman society. The list of grand Viziers includes Albanians, Serbs, Hungarians, Italians, Bulgarians, Circassians, Armenians, Arabs, Abazins and others as well as Turks.