Comments on: Putting a positive spin on your imperial past: not just a Japanese thing

By: haisan

haisan — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:55:08 +0000

I don’t think the issue is France taking a second look at its past. The issue is government mandating how its past is to be taught. In particular, the government telling teachers and historians what moral spin they must add.

By: judge judy

judge judy — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:37:41 +0000

and speaking of spin, this is a helluva way to do it chinese style…

http://www.harpers.org/BubbaTea.html

By: lirelou

lirelou — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:02:39 +0000

France is right to relook their colonial past. There were some major, positive contributions, particularly in public health and economic development. Without the French School of the Far East (EFEO), Angor Wat and many other sites would have been destroyed (despite Andre Malraux’s pillaging of cambodian artifacts), and the ethnolinguistic history of Indochina would have been largely erased. Even the present Vietnamese government recognizes the positive aspects of France’s “Mission civilizatrise” by retaining street names such as Pasteur and Yersine.

By: juan

juan — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:21:03 +0000

Actually I’m not against farm subsidies. What I’m against is the double standards the “developed” countries often impose on “less developed” countries.

By: juan

juan — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:25:28 +0000

err… I meant free market

By: juan

juan — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:24:12 +0000

“obscene farm subsidies that not only are directly responsible for grinding poverty in Africa…”
Add a whole bunch of developed countries to that list. Its not just the French. Developed countries the bastion for free economy? Only when it suits ‘em.

By: non korean

non korean — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:23:45 +0000

I agree with some of what Juan says. As long as both positive and negative points are brought up, it will help serve historical accuracy. I wouldn’t say the bad has to outweigh the good, just have an objective view of things.

There is no problem with England admitting the positives Rome brought to them and they handle the issue in a balanced way. Of course it happened over 2000 years ago so it is easy for them to look back upon it fairly and objectively. The US can now look back at the revolutionary war with objectivity and to show the British perspective on things. Again this is a historical event that happened over 200 years ago. They say it takes time for objective history to come to light. Maybe remembering something so recent is just too painful for most societies. But the sooner objective history can come about the better it will be for that society and its relations.

By: kimbob

kimbob — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:49:47 +0000

It pays to be a colonial power.

By: your mum

your mum — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:08:26 +0000

This shift towards a reappraisal of national histories is, as Juan says, nothing new. I think it’s a natural reaction if a country is force to say sorry for too long. Even young Germans, while by no means attempting to condone the actions of Hitler, are becoming increasingly assertive in declaring that Germans too were victims — notice, for instance, the growing movement in that country demanding an apology for the Allied bombings of Dresden.
The colonial record of the French is by no means as heinous as some (Belgium), but neither is it the least bad (perhaps Britain). What the French should be far more ashamed of is their current attachment to obscene farm subsidies that not only are directly responsible for grinding poverty in Africa, but threaten to derail the upcoming round of world trade talks.

By: juan

juan — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:03:51 +0000

Putting top spins, back spins, side spins on your past happens everywhere. I believe it is the level of the spin that matters. If France manages to show both the good points and the bad points in a fair manner (meaning bad points outnumber the good points :-)), I will not call it revisionism. But otherwise, its just a case of masturbation.