Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie

In the time I've been reading SDB faithfully -- since before I launched Byzantium's Shores, which was in turn almost fourteen months ago, and I still read him pretty much daily -- I've noticed that SDB chafes when people try to label him in certain ways. He doesn't like being characterized as a conservative, a right-winger, or a libertarian, among others, and he can generally cite some of his personal beliefs that illustrate his dislike of whatever label is in the offing. He'll actively endorse other labels for himself, though -- Jacksonian, for example, or "ethical cynic". But for the most part, SDB seems to cultivate a general dislike for labels, and for grouping people together except for matters of pure convenience.

Which brings me to (gulp) France.

SDB really doesn't like France. I mean, he really doesn't like France. Of course, he's got a lot of company in the America of "Freedom Fries"; but SDB has been railing against France for a lot longer than most other Americans have been burning down laundromats which their owners decided years ago to call "French Cleaners". SDB hated France before hating France was cool, to the point where his post on the first anniversary of 9-11-01 was -- you guessed it -- a diatribe on how much he dislikes France.

So in the last week, he's engaged in a bit of conspiracy theory about French motives in opposing the Iraqi war; it turns out there's some French company that would benefit by the war not taking place, with said benefits also accruing to President Chirac and others in the French government. This may be so, but I'm a bit nonplussed by the general warblogger position that of course France opposes the war on motives of pure economic gain, but to suggest even slightly that the Bush Administration favors war even in part on such similar motives (Halliburton? Bechtel?) is, well, dumb at best and "America hating treason" at worst.

And then, there's SDB's response to the vandalism and desecration of cemeteries where the British and American dead were interred after World War II and various other conflicts. To desecrate such a place is one of the most cowardly and odious things a person can do, and I agree that whoever did this is utterly, spectacularly vile. But to then go on, as SDB does, to interpret this act as indicative of the entire nation's beliefs is utterly absurd. He says:

There can be no greater demonstration of the blackness of the French soul than this desecration.

It certainly demonstrates the blackness of somebody's soul, to be sure. But every Frenchman or Frenchwoman? Come on. And no, polling statistics on French attitudes don't make the connection between that country's anti-war attitude and this specific act of desecration either, despite this claim to the contrary:

I would suspect that the majority of the French will deplore this vandalism. But they won't disagree with the fundamental opinions of those who committed it. They will deplore the means by which the message was delivered, but not the message itself.

This kind of "lumping of everyone together" into one gigantic political tent has not been a pleasant development in American politics, and I don't think it bodes well for international affairs, either. The entire nation of France should not be held accountable for this desecration any more than the millions of Americans who oppose abortion should be considered accessories to James Kopp's murder of Dr. Slepian; this desecration no more demonstrates "the blackness of the French soul" than does the acts of a couple of hillbillies in Jasper, Texas demonstrate "the blackness of the Texan soul".

(BTW, I have little doubt that if there were a French military graveyard somewhere on American soil, it would have received some similar desecration by now. There's always some boob out there willing to go that extra mile to make his beliefs known. Witness what happened to this poor laundry owner.)