Why We Blog: A Parisian Perspective and a Lost Soul

(By Ray D.)

Erik S. of ¡No Pasarán!, an outstanding French blog, left us a brilliant comment explaining why media critical bloggers have sprung up in droves throughout Europe over the past two years and why more and more bloggers are emerging to join their ranks with each passing day. He puts his finger on the fundamental prejudice and imbalance in European society and media which has been passively accepted by so many for so long now.

Just to place it in context, Erik's comment was posted as a response to another outstanding comment we posted a few days ago by Tyranno which can be viewed here. Here is what Erik had to say:

Having lived in Paris for over 10 years, I would say that, if anything, the 90-95% figure is too small. I mention this, because if you changed the word "German/Germany" to "French/France", Tyranno's words would ring just as true. Any discussion on world events will inevitably — and I do mean inevitably — lead to the statement of the "fact" that Americans are treacherous, and Europeans are ever so lucides. (That is what caused me to found this organization.) As for why people like myself have opened blogs about this, it is because of something called injustice. I do not like injustice. I do not like the injustice of a man who claims he is against war only going out to protest when the U.S. military is involved. I do not like the injustice of a woman who claims she is against the death penalty but willfully ignores China's putting to death as many as 25 times the number of people put to death in America each year. I do not like the injustice of an intellectual/reporter claiming to be indpendent and interested in all cases of government perfidy, and deliberately and consistently ignoring, and white-washing, those of anybody but Uncle Sam, and primarily those of his own government. I do not like the injustice of someone weeping about the fate of prisoners in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib and ignoring that of the men and women who had hands and tongues cut off, were forced to eat the flesh of their spouses' arms, and whose bodies litter the fields of Iraq; ignoring, in effect, the opinion of the majority of people in Iraq. If someone said that all blacks were simple-minded and incapable of thinking clearly, there would be an uproar, and rightly so. If someone said all Slavs were treacherous and war-mongers, there would be an uproar, and rightly so. Such opinions would not only be called unjust and ignorant, they would be called despicable. And rightly so.

But say the same about Americans, in public or among friends, and nobody thinks of protesting. Well, actually, yes, there are a few of us, and people like us are called "biased" by the likes of Jo who snicker and ask if we don't have more important things to worry about.

Now, here's the fun fact. When you mention this in Europe, some Europeans will guffaw and say, "Oh, but in the case of the Americans, it happens to be the truth!" (Of course, they forget that their own ancestors said the exact same thing about the blacks/Slavs/etc: it just happened to "be the truth", too.) Whatever the case may be, I have found what David and Tyranno have also uncovered: that a bit of investigation turns up the fact that Americans are perhaps not as simple-minded as the Europeans would like to think, and that the Europeans are perhaps not as avant-garde-thinking as they would like to believe. But because this "opinion" is inherently self-serving, unless some people say this (and it will be resisted as being ridiculously out-of-hand), no voices will be raised in Europe at all.

PS: I have translated part of Tyranno's post into French.

Rest assured, more and more people are "raising their voices" and saying what needs to be said. It is the same whether you are in Paris, Berlin, Madrid, London or anywhere else on the European continent. Transatlantic relations will never again flourish unless we confront the bias and resentments propogated on a mass scale by a small media elite. We cannot allow the ugly, self-serving prejudice that Erik so eloquently describes to continue unchecked around us. That is why we blog.

Here is another superb, must-see comment from a reader who calls himself "lost one":

My best friend is a young student at the University of Cologne, and has a tendency to repeat back things that sound a lot like propaganda to me (I am an American). In fact, we often fight about politics, because he thinks that -I- am the one that is a mindless victim of propaganda, even though I am actually struggling over who to vote for in this election and spend a lot of time thinking about these things. Last night he announced that he was going to see Farenheit 9/11. I tried to get him to understand that even people that hate Bush think the movie is a load of bull, but he kept parroting the "it's not as bad as the lies Bush told the American people" meme. The difficult thing is that he is really quite smart and openminded and wise about many things...just not this.

I'm going to try sending him the links of Der Spiegel articles you posted (I don't read enoough German to know for sure they are critical of the movie, so I am taking your word for it :) With luck, he'll at least be thinking about these things before he lays down his Euros (hard earned money that Moore has no right to, IMO) to watch that movie.

It's not that I don't understand how people can have questions about Bush. I have them myself. But this smug self assurance is what puzzles and hurts me. It's almost a religous kind of fervor, a faith that cannot be penetrated with opposing facts. The UN and the EU are the saviors, and Bush is Satan. Bush can't possibly even be a well meaning person who might have made tragic mistakes. Meanwhile, the UN food for oil scandals aren't as bad as the Iraq war, so we don't even have to think about those things. How can intelligent, good hearted people be like this? And I know they are intelligent, good hearted people. I don't think all Germans are stupid, or hate spewing Nazis. But I just don't understand it. (emphasis ours)

Maybe one of the German posters here who are not entirely unsympathetic towards Americans and Bush supporters could give me a little advice on how to talk to my friend, and how to act when I visit Cologne this October (which I confess being a huge mistake on my part when I booked the tickets, but they are paid for, so I think I kind of have to go). Should I just pretend to be an unabashed supporter of Kerry/Edwards? Say that Bush is worse than Hitler, and that the Iraq war was only about oil? Or is it okay in German society to say that you don't like to talk about politics?

Or should I just eat the cost of the tickets?

Outstanding stuff. We hope you speak your mind and don't feel so intimidated that you think you have to give-in to the opinions of the majority. Thank you all for your input.

Comments

[Gabi]

And that's why I am here. Thank you for this weblog.

I found this in a "serious" newspaper (online):

ftd.de, Fr, 30.7.2004, 7:22, aktualisiert: Fr, 30.7.2004, 16:28
Kerry zieht gegen Bushs Schwarzweiß-Außenpolitik zu Felde

Auch die Financial Times bringt nur Parolen! Ich bin zutiefst enttäuscht und erschreckt. Hat das denn keine Ende?
"Es geht darum, dass man zu uns aufschaut, und nicht darum, dass man Angst vor uns hat", sagte Kerry unter anhaltendem Beifall der Delegierten in der Nacht zum Freitag. "Stärke" bedeute für ihn "mehr als nur stramme Worte", sagte Kerry. "Es gibt einen richtigen und einen falschen Weg, stark zu sein!"

Was sagt Kerry denn in seiner Rede mehr als nur Parolen? Wo ist Inhalt, wenn er sagt, Stärke bedeute mehr als stramme Worte?

Ich wundere mich doch sehr, daß Kerrys Worthülsen so hochgelobt werden. Auch die FTD? Schade.

Aber es geht weiter: FAZ, SZ, FR, Tagesspiegel. Gibt es eine einzige Analyse?

Die Deutsche Welle hat ein Audio mit Christian Hacke mit der Überschrift, daß er Kerry als elegant und aristokratisch bezeichnet.

ARISTOKRATISCH??? Wo leben wir denn? Wollen wir jetzt wieder auf den Knie liegen vor Adligen? Ich fass es nicht. Herr Hacke ist Historiker, Amerikaexperte.

Kerry - Krönungszeremonie - moderates Amerika - säkulares Amerika - Friedenspräsident - Multilateralismus - das sind so die Wörter, die man Kerry zuschreibt. Insgesamt positive Wörter, die positive Assoziationen bewirken sollen. Aber was steckt an Realität dahinter?

Friedenspräsident? Da sieht man besonders, wie manipulativ unsere Medien sind. Friedenskanzler Schröder. Friedensmacht Deutschland und Europa. Schlimm, wenn sich hinter dem Wort Frieden nur Schwäche verbirgt.

[Karl B.]

Great thread Ray! Erik is an eloquent voice of protest. We should never underestimate the combined effect of principled objection to the mindless anti-americanism so prevalent here. Calling the media to task for its failures is an important first step toward changing the atmosphere.

[Pixy Misa]

It is a religion of sorts.

The belief comes first and always; any facts are secondary. So if the facts don't fit the belief, the facts are wrong. Which is why it is so hard to argue with these people.

[Gabi]

Dietmar Ostermann in der Frankfurter Rundschau:

Kerry tut es nicht mit jener apokalyptischen Düsternis, die jeden Auftritt des aktuellen Präsidenten zu diesem Thema kennzeichnet. Sondern er verkündet erfrischend zuversichtlich: "Die Zukunft gehört nicht der Angst, sie gehört der Freiheit."

Keine Inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung mit Kerrys Politik. Da muß man schon amerikanische Medien lesen, um tatsächliche Kritik zu finden:

"US-Presse zur Kerry-Rede
Journalisten bemängeln fehlende Visionen

Einflussreiche US-Tageszeitungen haben die Rede des demokratischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten John Kerry auf dem Parteitag in Boston zurückhaltend aufgenommen. Mehrere Kommentatoren bemängelten in den Freitagsausgaben ihrer Blätter, dass Kerry bei seinem Auftritt nicht näher auf das Thema Irak eingegangen sei.

Keine klaren Worte zum Irak
Unter dem Titel "Verpasste Chance" schrieb die "Washington Post", Kerry habe "mit Zuversicht und Eloquenz" gesprochen, seine Rede sei jedoch eine "Enttäuschung" gewesen. Der US-Senator habe den Eindruck erweckt, dass es unter ihm als Präsident im Irak einen "raschen und schmerzlosen Ausweg" geben würde. Kerry hätte vielmehr die "schwierige Wahrheit verkünden müssen, dass die US-Truppen noch lange Zeit im Irak stationiert sein werden".

Die "New York Times" bewertete den Auftritt Kerrys mit Blick auf die Lage im Irak ähnlich. Während der Kommentator des Blatts den demokratischen Präsidentschaftsbewerber für seine Absichten bei der Bekämpfung des Terrorismus lobte, bemängelte er eine fehlende "klare Vision für den Irak". Seine Wähler hätten von ihm das Bekenntnis erwarten können, dass seine Zustimmung als Senator zum Irak-Krieg nach reiflicher Überlegung "ein Fehler" gewesen sei. "Nun ist klar, dass Kerry dies nicht sagen wird, und das ist bedauerlich."

Ähnlichkeiten zu Bushs Programm
Nach Ansicht der Zeitung "USA Today» verlässt Kerry den Parteitag in Boston, "ohne den Wählern gezeigt zu haben, wie er das Land bei den dringendsten Fragen führen würde: den Krieg gegen den Terrorismus und eine Lösung des Schlamassels für Amerika im Irak". Bislang ähnele das Programm Kerrys dem seines republikanischen Kontrahenten George W. Bush."


http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID3483884_TYP1_NAV2826302~3482840_REF1,00.html

In unseren großen deutschen seriösen Zeitungen finde ich keine Kritik. Kerry wird bis auf einen Artikel in der TAZ ausschließlich positiv dargestellt.

[Joe N. (NOT Jo!)]

I live in Washington DC and am challenged by Bush haters almost daily, but that is nothing compared to what Erik, Ray, W., Douglas, have to put up with.

When I was younger I lives in Europe and the Middle East, I understand completely what they see daily. I'm lucky that I don't have to see what they see because I would not be able to calmly bear the humanitarian implications of things these protester-as-lifestyle types are say without thinking.

Men, you are brave, decent, and admirable.

Each one of you are my heroes.

[Ray D.]

Thank you for the kind words Karl and Joe N. Joe N., I tried to email you under your given address with no success (perhaps I entered it wrong), could you email me, thanks.

Happy reading all.

Ray D.
[email protected]

[Karl B.]

Hm. I see. Al Gore invented anti-americanism.

[Joe]

Actually Karl, he only tried to ride it into the presidency.

From a Mona Charen colunn yesterday, titled "Fables Democrats Tell Themselves":

<

But it’s an invention. As John Lott reminds us, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission began investigating charges of voter disenfranchisement in 2001. They investigated every tale of roadblocks, intimidation and registration anomalies. They found not a single African American who had been harassed, intimidated or prevented from voting at any polling place in Florida (though you’d have to read the minority report to learn this, since Mary Frances Berry, a partisan Democrat, is the chairman of the commission).

There was an attempt to prevent felons from voting, and the list Florida officials generated was in error in some cases. But a plot to prevent African Americans from voting? Hardly. Twice as many white voters as black were erroneously placed on the felon list.

In any case, two-thirds more African Americans voted in 2000 than in 1996. Though blacks represented 13 percent of Florida’s population, they accounted for 15 percent of the total vote. That is disenfranchisement? No, the “Florida was stolen” myth was cooked up by Al Gore to cloak his naked power grab in distinguished civil rights garments.>>

Gore's naked anger and tactics don't make anyone's reaction to it any less wrong, but it certainly doesn't make Gore's correct.

[Chris Josephson]

Excellent blog and thoughtful comments.

One point I'd like to make, that hasn't been touched upon too much, is why it's in everyone's (Europe and the US) best interest to expose the lies and propaganda that are disguised as news.

The US is not perfect. We will never be perfect and we need allies willing to bluntly criticize when the need arises. Same is true for the European countries.

As a US Citizen, I feel it's in the best interest of my country to have Europeans who will point out flaws, in the US, we aren't aware of. We may not take the criticism too kindly (nobody does) at first but honest criticism, based on fact, is needed by all countries if they are to prosper.

There is SO MUCH prejudice, hatred, and anti-US propaganda in Europe that I rarely hear any criticism that's based on fact. As a result, I tend to dismiss all of it. It's become mere background noise. (I'm not implying this is a one way street. Distortions about Europe exist in the US as well.)

All of us are faced with people in various Muslim Fanatical groups that would like to impose their Sharia law in our countries. Their ultimate goal seems to be to usher in a world wide Caliphate. (Muslims are not safe from the Fanatics.)

This is a serious threat to all of us that can't be fought successfully while we are so divided. We'll stay divided until the lies and propaganda are exposed. The lies and propaganda have acted as poison on both sides of the Atlantic.

The average citizen of the US or Europe does not benefit by the lies that have been told. The people who benefit are those who wish to take control and find it convenient to manipulate opinion while they do so.

[Karl B.]

... and because the European media have done such a terrible job of exposing European hypocrisy ...

http://www.henryk-broder.de/html/tagebuch.html?a=1

[WhatDoIKnow]

Thanks, Karl B

Another good article from Henryk Broder. Too bad they aren't translated into English, I believe there aren't many who hit the nail on the head like him.

Many of his articles usually sadden me, inspite of his sense of humor and sharp irony. This article in particular, even though it doesn't say anything new, is quite depressing. I wont't reach for the Prozac, but I sure have the same paranoia as he says he has. I wish I could find a failure in his logic, but I can't. You don't have to be a European Jew to feel the hostile environment.

No matter what will happen in EU, I for one am preparing my exit strategy from Europe. That's it. I thought about it for years, and I made my decision a while ago. The sooner, the better. Europe won't loose anything if I go(except my taxes) and I sure won't loose anything. I will be overjoyed if Europe surprises me positively in the future, but I won't return.

[Gabi]

Chris J.,
I don't understand your comment. What lies? Didn't you read the weblog: They were no lies. The liberal media said so. Journalists said so and go on to say so. here in Europe and the liberal media in the US too. More now to support Kerry. But the same media created the lies. We have 4 reports: No lies! Mistakes but no lies. So what are you talking about?

I don't believe the lie-journalism. That is propaganda for the people. I think David and Ray did a great job and many great commentators here to discover the lies as lies.

If I understood you wrong, please tell me, my English is limited and my translator is sleeping.

[jo]

Gabi,

"Kerry wird bis auf einen Artikel in der TAZ ausschließlich positiv dargestellt."

Was ist denn mit Ihnen passiert? Da schwingt sich die deutsche Presse mal (fast) unisono dazu auf, einen amerikanischen Politiker in den hoechsten Toenen zu loben, aber das ist Ihnen auch wieder nicht recht? Freuen Sie sich denn nicht, wenn deutsche Medien (ausnahmsweise) nur Gutes ueber die USA zu berichten wissen? Oder ist das in Ihren Augen nur ein weiterer Beweis fuer allseits grassierenden Anti-Amerikanismus?

Ich vermute, Sie wollten lediglich darauf hinweisen, dass sich die deutsche Medienlandschaft so unverbluemt an die Seite der Demokraten schlaegt. Das wuerde allerdings der in diesem Blog so beliebten Anti-Amerikanismus-These widersprechen. Kann es sein, dass es Europa tatsaechlich nur um George Walker Bush geht?

[werner]

Nun wollen wir doch mal die Geschichte nicht völlig außer Acht lassen. Unsere Medien behandeln Kerry zunächst rücksichtsvoll, weil er nicht Bush ist. Sollte ein Präsident Kerry so planlos sein wie manche das erwarten/erhoffen, werden eher stille Verachtung und leise Diffamierung vorherrschen. So war es während der carter- und Clinton-Ära. Falls nicht, sind die Flitterwochen eben vorbei und die hysterische Form von Anti-Amerikanismus setzt wieder ein, an die ich mich aus der Reagan-Ära und der Amtszeit von George H.W. Bush noch sehr gut erinnere.

Anti-Amerikanismus ist keine These, sondern ein ideologisches Phänomen. Die Haßtiraden der 70ern sind mir gerade noch geläufig (USA=SA=SS). Heute sind genau diese Mao-Verehrer und Terroristenfans an der Regierung, im Kulturbetrieb und in den Medien allgegenwärtig - und das merkt man auch. Und wenn es keinen Krieg gibt, werden eben die Kultur und Lebensart niedergemacht.

Reagan ist genau so verunglimpft worden wie Bush. 1991 während des ersten Golfkrieg fühlten sich die wiedervereinigten Deutschen sicher genug - damals brachen schon alle Dämme, trotz UN-Segen, breiter Allianz und finanzieller Unterstützung durch die Bundesregierung. Und unter Clinton? Ein Fortschritt: Mehr Häme als Haß. Die vom Stern und Ulrich Wickert verbreitete Behauptung, daß die USA in Somalia nur am Erdgas interessiert waren (und auch das war eine UN Mission) hat den Boden für die heutigen Lügengebilde bereitet. Selbst bei den sehr aggressiven Demonstrationen gegen den Kosovokrieg schien es nur um die USA zu gehen. Die deutsche Beteiligung haben wir postwendend vergessen, jetzt wo sie Schröder und Fischer nicht mehr in den Lebenslauf passt.

Es sind weniger die USA, um die ich mir dabei Sorgen mache. Sorgen macht mir das demokratische Deutschland. Eine politische Kultur, die sich derart in die eigene Tasche lügt, kann sich auch den eigenen Problemen nicht mehr stellen. Kein Wunder, daß dieses Land lieber ein Problem mit Bush hat.

[jo]

Bravo, wusste ich's doch, dass es irgendwie gelingen wuerde, selbst in einer Kerry-freundlichen Presse noch einen abgrundtiefen Anti-Amerikanismus zu entdecken. Man braucht nur mit den ueblichen Verleumdungen um sich werfen ("Mao-Verehrer und Terroristenfans an der Regierung, im Kulturbetrieb und in den Medien") und schon passt das vertraute Bild wieder. Es scheint mir fast, als geht es den meisten hier gar nicht um eine ernsthafte Anti-Amerikanismus-Debatte, sondern darum, dass die Konservativen glauben, sie haetten Amerika und seine Werte fuer sich gepachtet. So ist es naemlich ein leichtes, jede Kritik gleich als Anti-Amerikanismus hinzustellen und selbst ehemalige Praesidentschaftskanditaten zu Anti-Amerikanisten zu erklaeren.

[werner]

Sehr typisch kommt mir der Kommentar des Chefredakteurs unseres lokales Käseblattes vor, welches immerhin angeblich 900.000 Leser hat.

Zitat: "John Kerry ist die große Hoffnung Europas. George Bush ist als Typ und als Politiker so uneuropäisch wie man nur sein kann. Wir kommen mit diesem Mann einfach nicht klar. Sein Denken, seine Art zu handeln, seine Art zu gehen: Europa verzweifelt still, wenn es auf den amtierenden US-Präsidenten schaut. [....] Anders als Bush kommt uns Kerry fast wie einer von uns vor. In diesem Eindruck steckt der Keim der Enttäuschung, die wir erleben werden, wenn Kerry es schafft. [....] Aber John Kerry ist nicht minder amerikanisch als George Bush. Er wird Amerikas Interessen anders, aber ebenso energisch vertreten wie dieser. Wo Europäer und Amerikaner sich unterscheiden werden sie es auch unter Kerry tun."

Das heißt doch nichts anderes als: 1) Amerikas Interessen sind von vorneherein nicht unsere Interessen. 2) Uneuropäisch = schlecht! Einer von uns = gut! 3) Es sind halt beide nur Amis.

Einen solcher Kommentar kann heute nur den USA gelten, und vielleicht noch Israel. Kein anderes Land würde so behandelt werden. Diese subtilen Europäer!

[Gabi]

Werner,
das ist so unglaublich dumm: "seine Art zu gehen". Und all das andere auch. Ist der Artikel online verfügbar?

[werner]

Gabi - Ja, das dachte ich auch. Meines Wissens ist er nicht online. Da verpasst Du auch nichts.

jo - Das mit dem Mao-Verehrern ist ja kein Geheimnis. Und ich habe von den genannten Gruppen jede Menge relativierende Äußerungen über die RAF und andere Terroristen gehört. Mein Punkt ist, daß ich die Kerry-Freundlichkeit genau so ernst nehme wie die Bush-Aversion, nämlich gar nicht. Und was ist daran konservativ? Außer, daß es Dir nicht in den Kram paßt? Eine deutsche Konservative gibt es doch gar nicht mehr, und wenn es sie gäbe, wer weiß schon, ob sie pro-amerikanisch wäre?

[Karl B.]

Thanks, What-do-I-know. Sorry you're leaving. Good luck with your new life in your new home.

Broder's article was particularly bitter. One might even call it "anti-German". I guess that's what every democracy needs: folks who are willing to stand up and (even if they're not always right) take some of the hot air out of our inflated impressions of ourselves. Without the Mark Twains, the H.L. Menckens and H.L. Broders of the world, we tend get so absorbed with ourselves that we cannot see how silly we sometimes look.

[KB]

Er, that's H.M. Broder.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Thanks Karl B. Believe me, I'm not sorry at all :-))

I have many wonderful memories of people and events from my years in Germany (and in EU), which I will never forget. But given the current political situation in EU and also personal issues, this is the best decision. My wife and I are not only satisfied with it, we are also very happy ;-)

[Gabi]

WhatDoIKnow,
may I ask if your wife is German? Perhaps you told us already but here are so many people with so many information. And elderly people ... you know.

[WhatDoIKnow]

No, she is Romanian, just like me. In fact, I am what is called Rumänien-Deutscher.

[jo]

"Behold, for soon the ports of Hamburg and Rostock will spill over with myriads of American refugees! [...]"

I doubt it. President Kerry will change all that. So, there it won't be necessary anymore to immigrate to Europe.

[mishu]

Berliner Zeitung is speaking on behalf of all Europeans in their disappointment of Kerry.

"Europeans are surprised to hear that John Kerry is talking about America the same way as George W. Bush does," the paper said. "They are amazed that at the Democratic Convention in Boston, he saluted like a soldier, one hand up at his temple. They would prefer not to hear it when Kerry promises that he would never hesitate to use force in case America is under threat. They are disappointed."

They wanted us to appease dammit!