" Mais il évident que la France, elle aussi, ferait bien de se méfier de ses propres extrémistes "
tout à fait d'accord, Greg
tout à fait d'accord, Greg
What's your favorite language family?
"Attention ! L'Allemagne a été le paradis du bolchévisme, du communisme, du socialisme et de l'anarchisme entre 1918 et 1933. Ça n'a pas empêché le pire de se produire."
Wow, Greg, I understood all of this paragraph. But in answer, I would remind you of the political climate in the inter-war years. Because of humiliation of their defeat, the German people blamed their loss on the politicians, and not the generals. Economic conditions were horrible, with inflation making their money valueless. So, the condition was ripe for radicalism, for people like Adolph who could point the finger at somebody. He played up Germany's strong nationalism, and popular ideas of racial superiority. Through his massive spending programs he relieved the German economy, and the people got what they wanted. He was also able to sieze power after becoming Chancellor only because the constitution allowed for the Chancellor to assume absolute powers in time of need, like the Roman dictators of old. These same conditions do not exist today, and with the global economy as integrated as it is today, I don't see a revolution going on in Germany any time soon. If anything, the French should worry more about an aggressive China in the far east. The German people need to be reminded of the atrocities commited by their nation in times past, so as to not repeat the same mistake as their forefathers. But, they should not be made to feel self-conscious over the mistakes commited by their forefathers generations ago. When does the guilt trip end?
Wow, Greg, I understood all of this paragraph. But in answer, I would remind you of the political climate in the inter-war years. Because of humiliation of their defeat, the German people blamed their loss on the politicians, and not the generals. Economic conditions were horrible, with inflation making their money valueless. So, the condition was ripe for radicalism, for people like Adolph who could point the finger at somebody. He played up Germany's strong nationalism, and popular ideas of racial superiority. Through his massive spending programs he relieved the German economy, and the people got what they wanted. He was also able to sieze power after becoming Chancellor only because the constitution allowed for the Chancellor to assume absolute powers in time of need, like the Roman dictators of old. These same conditions do not exist today, and with the global economy as integrated as it is today, I don't see a revolution going on in Germany any time soon. If anything, the French should worry more about an aggressive China in the far east. The German people need to be reminded of the atrocities commited by their nation in times past, so as to not repeat the same mistake as their forefathers. But, they should not be made to feel self-conscious over the mistakes commited by their forefathers generations ago. When does the guilt trip end?
Greg,
Although the majority of the German and French populace are liberal, left-wing, I've heard that there are some extreme parties in Europe as well, that just wouldn't last a day in the states. There are a lot of extreme right-wing, Nazi parties. I hate the white supremacists. My best friend (who is black) and I were victimized by skinheads. The two of us were jumped by four of them, and it wasn't pretty.
Although the majority of the German and French populace are liberal, left-wing, I've heard that there are some extreme parties in Europe as well, that just wouldn't last a day in the states. There are a lot of extreme right-wing, Nazi parties. I hate the white supremacists. My best friend (who is black) and I were victimized by skinheads. The two of us were jumped by four of them, and it wasn't pretty.
« Although the majority of the German and French populace are liberal, left-wing, I've heard that there are some extreme parties in Europe as well »
You're right, there are. I understand that such groups have had more success in France and in Switzerland than anywhere else in recent years. The British National Party received about 17% of the vote in the local elections a few months ago, but they tend not to have any success at all in the general elections, thankfully.
You're right, there are. I understand that such groups have had more success in France and in Switzerland than anywhere else in recent years. The British National Party received about 17% of the vote in the local elections a few months ago, but they tend not to have any success at all in the general elections, thankfully.
Radicalism is very often based on fear. Once South Africa got ride of this fear it moved away from apartheid. South Africa gave the example that it is possible.
Now the other countries with apartheid should drop it as well such as US, Brazil and Australia.
Now the other countries with apartheid should drop it as well such as US, Brazil and Australia.
How does the U.S. practice apartheid? Racial segregation and opportunity for social mobility are much more strict in Latin America.
Well what are reservations nothing more nothing less then our former homelands.
Homelands: "self governing" areas of native people bestowed by the ruling power.
Homelands: "self governing" areas of native people bestowed by the ruling power.
I've lived in places like Tahoe, and I used to hang out with Indian kids from the Res. They're happy where they are. They don't have to pay taxes, and they don't have to answer to the law. They even get away with stealing brand new cars. They're free to leave, they just don't normally do so.
Well supose things are better now but you still see sites like the one below
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-04-voa61.cfm?CFID=37272380&CFTOKEN=25976265
sorry it's a bit long
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-08/2005-08-04-voa61.cfm?CFID=37272380&CFTOKEN=25976265
sorry it's a bit long
No one is making American Indians stay on the reservations. In fact, in Minnesota, which has a fairly high Indian population, the majority live in the Twin Cities, and not on the reservations.
On the reservations, they have rights that other Americans don't share, such as exclusive access to commercial walleye fisheries and wild rice lakes, not to mention their gaming rights.
There is no defense for past treatment of the American Indians, but to say the USA practices apartheid is false.
The Sioux reservations in South Dakota and the Ojibway reservations in Northern Minnesota are not as well off financially as the smaller reservations nearer to major population areas, largely because any casino they would build would be out of the way and, therefore, rarely visited.
A note on terms--some prefer Native American or First Nations over American Indian. However, American Indian is the accepted and official term in Minnesota. I personally have 2 indian ancestors, and have deep respect for American Indian history and culture.
On the reservations, they have rights that other Americans don't share, such as exclusive access to commercial walleye fisheries and wild rice lakes, not to mention their gaming rights.
There is no defense for past treatment of the American Indians, but to say the USA practices apartheid is false.
The Sioux reservations in South Dakota and the Ojibway reservations in Northern Minnesota are not as well off financially as the smaller reservations nearer to major population areas, largely because any casino they would build would be out of the way and, therefore, rarely visited.
A note on terms--some prefer Native American or First Nations over American Indian. However, American Indian is the accepted and official term in Minnesota. I personally have 2 indian ancestors, and have deep respect for American Indian history and culture.
I see then I have misinterpreted, to me reservations has a very negative connotation when humans are involved.
Even though what you have decribed above sound just like homelands. Nearly every homeland had a casino (out side the homelands it was ileagel). The people weren't forced to live in these homelands but had to belong to one of them. I remember some African friends of mine when I was growing up belonged to Lebowa but never went there.
The land was the natives and they could do with it what they wished. As you can see there is some resemblance. The difference being that the Native Americans are happy the way they are but the native South Africans weren't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Even though what you have decribed above sound just like homelands. Nearly every homeland had a casino (out side the homelands it was ileagel). The people weren't forced to live in these homelands but had to belong to one of them. I remember some African friends of mine when I was growing up belonged to Lebowa but never went there.
The land was the natives and they could do with it what they wished. As you can see there is some resemblance. The difference being that the Native Americans are happy the way they are but the native South Africans weren't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"The difference being that the Native Americans are happy the way they are but the native South Africans weren't."
Not necessarily true--after all, before Europeans discovered America, the entire continent was inhabited exclusively by the Indians. Also, poverty rates are undeniably higher among Indians than among the general population. I just wanted to demonstrate that, although in the past unfair treatment did occur, the persecution does not continue today.
Not necessarily true--after all, before Europeans discovered America, the entire continent was inhabited exclusively by the Indians. Also, poverty rates are undeniably higher among Indians than among the general population. I just wanted to demonstrate that, although in the past unfair treatment did occur, the persecution does not continue today.
Speaking as someone who is intimately acquainted with Native Americans, (or once was), I can personally testify to the fact that they are very satisfied with their current situation. Many leave the Res to go see what life's like in the big cities, but often, when kids grow up, they decide to stay. They don't pay taxes, they have their own laws, their immune to most government penalties. Allow me to illustrate.
My brother used to work for Ford motor Company. Indians used to come into Las Vegas and test drive cars. They could not be denied a test drive, because of anti-discrimination laws. They would then take the car, and drive onto the reservations. From that point on, once they were on reservation grounds, they were free from the law of the United States. So, the car dealership would have to meet with their council of elders, (the legislative/judicial body) to plead their case against the theft of their property. The council mainly did this as an exercise of formality, for they would always rule in favor of the thief of their tribe who stole their car. So, Indians drive around in free Ford Mustang convertables all the time, without having to pay a dime, and they get away with it free and clear at that!
My brother used to work for Ford motor Company. Indians used to come into Las Vegas and test drive cars. They could not be denied a test drive, because of anti-discrimination laws. They would then take the car, and drive onto the reservations. From that point on, once they were on reservation grounds, they were free from the law of the United States. So, the car dealership would have to meet with their council of elders, (the legislative/judicial body) to plead their case against the theft of their property. The council mainly did this as an exercise of formality, for they would always rule in favor of the thief of their tribe who stole their car. So, Indians drive around in free Ford Mustang convertables all the time, without having to pay a dime, and they get away with it free and clear at that!
LAA : « Because of humiliation of their defeat, the German people blamed their loss on the politicians, and not the generals. Economic conditions were horrible, with inflation making their money valueless. »
Un écrit de Streseman dans une publication française, « L'Europe nouvelle » (en 1925) semble corrober ta thèse :
« Depuis la paix, nous n'avons obtenu de succès nulle part. Notre République n'a pas pu se présenter aux Allemands en affirmant qu'elle leur avait apporté la paix, la liberté et du pain. Depuis la fin de la guerre, nous avons traversé les crises les plus graves : le chômage, une insécurité politique continue, la faim et la détresse. D'où viendrait l'enthousiasme pour l'ère nouvelle et ses institutions ? Un succès engendre l'autre : or, la nouvelle Allemagne n'a connu aucun succès à l'extérieur : la politique européenne ne lui a pas apporté la stabilisation dont elle avait besoin. Ce n'est pas la faute des hommes qui dirigent l'Allemagne nouvelle (...), les hommes qui font de la politique le savent, mais la foule pense de façon primitive, elle garde la vision dorée de l'ancienne Allemagne paisible et puissante et elle est facilement entraînée à rendre les gouvernements d'aujourd'hui responsables du contraste entre le passé et le présent. (...) ».
Mais cet écrit est postérieur à 1923, date à laquelle la Ruhr fut occupée sans ménagement par les troupes franco-belges à l'initiative de Raymond Poincaré : politique de représailles violentes à l'autoproclamation allemande de cessation de paiement des réparations de guerre dues à ces deux pays. C'est la grève allemande contre l'occupation française qui a plongé l'Allemagne dans le gouffre de l'hyperinflation.
D'ailleurs Streseman meurt en 1929, année de l'effondrement des États-Unis. C'est le krach boursier de 1929, plus que l'occupation française de 1923, qui est à l'origine de la décomposition de Weimar et de la montée du nazisme en Allemagne.
La période entre 1918 & 1919 n'a pas été de tout repos : Traité de Versailles (Diktat), constitution de conseils ouvriers (soviets), marxisme révolutionnaire (dont les spartakistes), proclamation d'une République soviétique à Munich etc. Ces mouvements montrent clairement que l'agitation était sociale avant tout et que la défaite n' a été qu'un élément déclencheur. Le mythe du coup de poignard dans le dos (Dolchstoßlegende) est une interprétation des causes de la défaite et de la décadence comme un facteur essentiellement non-militaire : les « rouges », les « juifs », la République de Weimar etc. Ce serait une erreur terrible de penser que les Allemands ont universellement et spontanément attribué la défaite à leurs politiciens. Les Allemands de 1918-1920 avaient d'autres chats à fouetter.
LAA : « These same conditions do not exist today, and with the global economy as integrated as it is today, I don't see a revolution going on in Germany any time soon. »
Il y a en effet peu de chances que la RFA soit à l'origine d'une révolution européenne. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que l'Europe se distingue de l'Amérique du Nord en ce que la classe ouvrière (ou les masses laborieuses, comme tu voudras) de la première a toujours exercé un rôle politique puissant (direct ou indirect, participatif ou insurrectionnel) alors que celle de la seconde n'a même plus de conscience de soi : elle est davantage un objet de la politique (communication lessivière des appareils bipartisans, téléspectacle érigée en norme...) qu'un sujet ou un acteur de la chose publique (voir l'incroyable apathie lors de l'engagement de la guerre contre l'Iraq et le détournement des fonds de l'État au profit de ce conflit privatisé).
Par ailleurs, je te mets en garde contre l'illusion de la mondialisation. Le monde de 1914 était largement mondialisé. Celui de 1939 aussi.
LAA : « The German people need to be reminded of the atrocities commited by their nation in times past, so as to not repeat the same mistake as their forefathers. But, they should not be made to feel self-conscious over the mistakes commited by their forefathers generations ago. When does the guilt trip end? »
Là où l'Allemagne (et la France, dans une bien moindre mesure toutefois) a 200 ans d'avance sur des pays tels que la Russie, la Chine ou les États-Unis, c'est que le travail de réflexion et de prévention est infiniment plus courageux, authentique, approfondi et *ACCEPTÉ* au sein de la population.
C'est ce travail qui lui permet aujourd'hui un retour en force diplomatique et militaire sur la scène internationale.
Un écrit de Streseman dans une publication française, « L'Europe nouvelle » (en 1925) semble corrober ta thèse :
« Depuis la paix, nous n'avons obtenu de succès nulle part. Notre République n'a pas pu se présenter aux Allemands en affirmant qu'elle leur avait apporté la paix, la liberté et du pain. Depuis la fin de la guerre, nous avons traversé les crises les plus graves : le chômage, une insécurité politique continue, la faim et la détresse. D'où viendrait l'enthousiasme pour l'ère nouvelle et ses institutions ? Un succès engendre l'autre : or, la nouvelle Allemagne n'a connu aucun succès à l'extérieur : la politique européenne ne lui a pas apporté la stabilisation dont elle avait besoin. Ce n'est pas la faute des hommes qui dirigent l'Allemagne nouvelle (...), les hommes qui font de la politique le savent, mais la foule pense de façon primitive, elle garde la vision dorée de l'ancienne Allemagne paisible et puissante et elle est facilement entraînée à rendre les gouvernements d'aujourd'hui responsables du contraste entre le passé et le présent. (...) ».
Mais cet écrit est postérieur à 1923, date à laquelle la Ruhr fut occupée sans ménagement par les troupes franco-belges à l'initiative de Raymond Poincaré : politique de représailles violentes à l'autoproclamation allemande de cessation de paiement des réparations de guerre dues à ces deux pays. C'est la grève allemande contre l'occupation française qui a plongé l'Allemagne dans le gouffre de l'hyperinflation.
D'ailleurs Streseman meurt en 1929, année de l'effondrement des États-Unis. C'est le krach boursier de 1929, plus que l'occupation française de 1923, qui est à l'origine de la décomposition de Weimar et de la montée du nazisme en Allemagne.
La période entre 1918 & 1919 n'a pas été de tout repos : Traité de Versailles (Diktat), constitution de conseils ouvriers (soviets), marxisme révolutionnaire (dont les spartakistes), proclamation d'une République soviétique à Munich etc. Ces mouvements montrent clairement que l'agitation était sociale avant tout et que la défaite n' a été qu'un élément déclencheur. Le mythe du coup de poignard dans le dos (Dolchstoßlegende) est une interprétation des causes de la défaite et de la décadence comme un facteur essentiellement non-militaire : les « rouges », les « juifs », la République de Weimar etc. Ce serait une erreur terrible de penser que les Allemands ont universellement et spontanément attribué la défaite à leurs politiciens. Les Allemands de 1918-1920 avaient d'autres chats à fouetter.
LAA : « These same conditions do not exist today, and with the global economy as integrated as it is today, I don't see a revolution going on in Germany any time soon. »
Il y a en effet peu de chances que la RFA soit à l'origine d'une révolution européenne. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que l'Europe se distingue de l'Amérique du Nord en ce que la classe ouvrière (ou les masses laborieuses, comme tu voudras) de la première a toujours exercé un rôle politique puissant (direct ou indirect, participatif ou insurrectionnel) alors que celle de la seconde n'a même plus de conscience de soi : elle est davantage un objet de la politique (communication lessivière des appareils bipartisans, téléspectacle érigée en norme...) qu'un sujet ou un acteur de la chose publique (voir l'incroyable apathie lors de l'engagement de la guerre contre l'Iraq et le détournement des fonds de l'État au profit de ce conflit privatisé).
Par ailleurs, je te mets en garde contre l'illusion de la mondialisation. Le monde de 1914 était largement mondialisé. Celui de 1939 aussi.
LAA : « The German people need to be reminded of the atrocities commited by their nation in times past, so as to not repeat the same mistake as their forefathers. But, they should not be made to feel self-conscious over the mistakes commited by their forefathers generations ago. When does the guilt trip end? »
Là où l'Allemagne (et la France, dans une bien moindre mesure toutefois) a 200 ans d'avance sur des pays tels que la Russie, la Chine ou les États-Unis, c'est que le travail de réflexion et de prévention est infiniment plus courageux, authentique, approfondi et *ACCEPTÉ* au sein de la population.
C'est ce travail qui lui permet aujourd'hui un retour en force diplomatique et militaire sur la scène internationale.