The thing that strikes me is that accusations of Empire are useful when it suits but the fact is that some places appear to be better off under colonial rule by a civilised western power than they are by tribal warlords and crazed religious zealots. All cultures are not equal. If they were traffic between them would not be as one way. What’s the difference between French colonisation of yesteryear and the colonisation of Christian Lebanon by Muslim radicals leading to civil war??
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Perhaps they could do a job swap. Macron runs Lebanon for a while and variety of Lebanese crooks run France.
A striking deployment of straightforward, factual information, in a way that neatly bypasses questions about European involvement in former colonies ” and indeed, about empire itself. It renders such whataboutery as impotent as it is irrelevant to Lebanon’s present, terrible situation.
I had always thought that, if one was forced to choose between two models for empire, the British one was inherently superior to the French, largely because of the latter’s paternalistic mission civilisatrice and its centralising inclinations. But events of recent decades have given me cause for thought about my suppositions.
Granted that the British have had notable successes in helping out when a former colony was in trouble ” notably in Sierra Leone in the 1990s ” but it seems to me that France has been quicker to jump up. Look at several interventions in former African colonies over the last 30 years.
OK. Those interventions have been fuelled partly by the way that France, after independence, kept many of those countries tied in one way or another to their former masters. But this article shows another side to that attachment. Jupiter has indeed landed.
It reminds me of an incident I experienced over twenty years ago, at a meal where a conversation broke out about what was happening in Pakistan. That was during the mid- or late-1990s. I was sitting next to an elderly engineer of Pakistani origin who, I guess, would have been in his early 20s when the state of Pakistan was established in 1947.
As the quite animated conversation went on around us, he turned to me and said “It was better when the British were there.” He spoke very quietly, with a twinkle in the eye. But he spoke in utter seriousness. If Mr Roussinos’s account is to be believed ” and I don’t see why it should not be believed, some Lebanese are now feeling the same as my distinguished Pakistani friend.
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
3 years ago
Maybe Jordan, the Dominican Republic, Singapore, or Botswana could get involved helping other nations. Harder to call it “European colonialism” when [well-governed] non-European states are doing the heavy work!
Stephen Follows
3 years ago
A perfect opportunity for the whites to refuse to use their ‘privilege’ to be ‘saviours’ of the rest, and then to demonstrate what happens when they don’t.
Mark Corby
3 years ago
I was amused by your remark “since Independence from France in 1943″. That ‘Independence’ was achieved thanks to the British Army giving the French a ” damned good thrashing ” on two occasions, in 1941 to the Vichy French, and then again in 1945 to the Free French.
Both campaigns incited WinstonChurchill KG, to make some fairly vitriolic remarks about De Gaulle, which were never to be forgiven or forgotten, whilst President Truman stated, rather more succinctly, “Those French ought to be castrated”. A contemporary French politician described the situation as the worst crisis since Fashoda.
French mandate rule, from 1920 both in the Lebanon, and neighbouring Syria, had been at unmitigated disaster from the very beginning when the first French viceroy, arriving at the tomb of Saladin in Damascus ejaculated “Saladin, nous sommes ici”, whilst simultaneously kicking the tomb.Not a good start.
Given such a background it is surely ironic that Macron now seeks to curry favour with the unfortunate Lebanese.
Mark Corby
3 years ago
I was amused by your remark “since Independence from France in 1943″. That ‘Independence’ was achieved thanks to the British Army giving the French a ” damned good thrashing ” on two occasions, in 1941 to the Vichy French, and then again in 1945 to the Free French. Both campaigns incited WinstonChurchill KG, to make some fairly vitriolic remarks about De Gaulle, which were never to be forgiven or forgotten, whilst President Truman stated, rather more succinctly, “Those French ought to be emasculated “.A contemporary French politician described the situation as the worst crisis since Fashoda. French mandate rule, from 1920 both in the Lebanon, and neighbouring Syria, had been at unmitigated disaster from the very beginning when the first French viceroy, arriving at the tomb of Saladin in Damascus yelled, “Saladin, nous sommes ici”, whilst simultaneously kicking the tomb.Not a good start. Given such a background it is surely ironic that Macron now seeks to curry favour with the unfortunate Lebanese.
The thing that strikes me is that accusations of Empire are useful when it suits but the fact is that some places appear to be better off under colonial rule by a civilised western power than they are by tribal warlords and crazed religious zealots. All cultures are not equal. If they were traffic between them would not be as one way. What’s the difference between French colonisation of yesteryear and the colonisation of Christian Lebanon by Muslim radicals leading to civil war??
Perhaps they could do a job swap. Macron runs Lebanon for a while and variety of Lebanese crooks run France.
It wouldn’t make much difference either way.
Actually it would.
That is why France is France!
Really? Could you expand slightly on that?
A striking deployment of straightforward, factual information, in a way that neatly bypasses questions about European involvement in former colonies ” and indeed, about empire itself. It renders such whataboutery as impotent as it is irrelevant to Lebanon’s present, terrible situation.
I had always thought that, if one was forced to choose between two models for empire, the British one was inherently superior to the French, largely because of the latter’s paternalistic mission civilisatrice and its centralising inclinations. But events of recent decades have given me cause for thought about my suppositions.
Granted that the British have had notable successes in helping out when a former colony was in trouble ” notably in Sierra Leone in the 1990s ” but it seems to me that France has been quicker to jump up. Look at several interventions in former African colonies over the last 30 years.
OK. Those interventions have been fuelled partly by the way that France, after independence, kept many of those countries tied in one way or another to their former masters. But this article shows another side to that attachment. Jupiter has indeed landed.
It reminds me of an incident I experienced over twenty years ago, at a meal where a conversation broke out about what was happening in Pakistan. That was during the mid- or late-1990s. I was sitting next to an elderly engineer of Pakistani origin who, I guess, would have been in his early 20s when the state of Pakistan was established in 1947.
As the quite animated conversation went on around us, he turned to me and said “It was better when the British were there.” He spoke very quietly, with a twinkle in the eye. But he spoke in utter seriousness. If Mr Roussinos’s account is to be believed ” and I don’t see why it should not be believed, some Lebanese are now feeling the same as my distinguished Pakistani friend.
Maybe Jordan, the Dominican Republic, Singapore, or Botswana could get involved helping other nations. Harder to call it “European colonialism” when [well-governed] non-European states are doing the heavy work!
A perfect opportunity for the whites to refuse to use their ‘privilege’ to be ‘saviours’ of the rest, and then to demonstrate what happens when they don’t.
I was amused by your remark “since Independence from France in 1943″. That ‘Independence’ was achieved thanks to the British Army giving the French a ” damned good thrashing ” on two occasions, in 1941 to the Vichy French, and then again in 1945 to the Free French.
Both campaigns incited WinstonChurchill KG, to make some fairly vitriolic remarks about De Gaulle, which were never to be forgiven or forgotten, whilst President Truman stated, rather more succinctly, “Those French ought to be castrated”. A contemporary French politician described the situation as the worst crisis since Fashoda.
French mandate rule, from 1920 both in the Lebanon, and neighbouring Syria, had been at unmitigated disaster from the very beginning when the first French viceroy, arriving at the tomb of Saladin in Damascus ejaculated “Saladin, nous sommes ici”, whilst simultaneously kicking the tomb.Not a good start.
Given such a background it is surely ironic that Macron now seeks to curry favour with the unfortunate Lebanese.
I was amused by your remark “since Independence from France in 1943″. That ‘Independence’ was achieved thanks to the British Army giving the French a ” damned good thrashing ” on two occasions, in 1941 to the Vichy French, and then again in 1945 to the Free French.
Both campaigns incited WinstonChurchill KG, to make some fairly vitriolic remarks about De Gaulle, which were never to be forgiven or forgotten, whilst President Truman stated, rather more succinctly, “Those French ought to be emasculated “.A contemporary French politician described the situation as the worst crisis since Fashoda.
French mandate rule, from 1920 both in the Lebanon, and neighbouring Syria, had been at unmitigated disaster from the very beginning when the first French viceroy, arriving at the tomb of Saladin in Damascus yelled, “Saladin, nous sommes ici”, whilst simultaneously kicking the tomb.Not a good start.
Given such a background it is surely ironic that Macron now seeks to curry favour with the unfortunate Lebanese.