First untoward event in France -- grumpy bistro owner

Carole and I have been to France many times and we have always had a positive experience.

Carole is currently in France with her father (who is dying of leukemia), mother, sister and two brothers doing one last hurrah. Their roots go back to the Bordeaux region. I received the following email from Carole:

"We were hungry so we walked down the street to a corner Bistro and a man standing at the bar ( who was the owner) recognized our accent and came over and began to trash Bush. We tried to keep quiet but he began to say "Fuck George Bush" so we had to get up and leave. One of the waiters apologized as we were leaving and reaffirmed the obvious that he was "mean and drunk"."

Too bad -- the bloom is off the rose.

It doesn't take too much intelligence to spot the difference between the president of a country and one of it's citizens. A shame this drunk couldn't.

This issue does concern a number of US tourists (one I met was on the verge of getting an 'I didn't vote for Bush' T-shirt printed before leaving the states!). This for me was the right course of action from your family. They don't have to defend Bush or US politics and they shouldn't take abuse about something they have no influence over. That said, there are few who would voice their anger and even fewer who would do it so offensively. More likely to see would be an initial waryness.

Walking politely away from that sort of situation is definitely the right thing to do.

I hope they experience nothing like this again

regards

Ian

they shouldn't take abuse about something they have no influence over

No more than we paid attention to all of the silly boycott France nonsense that went on here. Sad.

They don't have to defend Bush or US politics and they shouldn't take abuse about something they have no influence over.

I don't defend the actions of this drunken man, but in the appropriate circumstances I do think citizens of modern democracies can be expected to explain whether they supported their government's policies by voting for the people in question. Especially in this case where the 2004 Presidential election was a clear opportunity to choose between support for Bush's policies and an undetermined-but-possibly-different Other Guy.

If you're saying we have no influence then why hold elections?

People who are distressed by what the natives say, shouldn't go to a place where there are natives to distress them. Staying wrapped in their own little cocoons would be advisable. Unless you're on a This Is Tuesday So It Must Be Belgium tour, you stand the chance of running into real people in these damned foreign countries.

Newsflash: there's a mean, drunk, distressed and angry guy in France who doesn't like Bush.

Another newsflash: there's a few people people scattered around the US who don't like Bush very much either. Some of them are variously, perhaps collectively, mean, distressed and angry. Not all of them are drunk.

And I once got cursed at by a guy on the street in New York City. I don't think he was a Frenchman either. But I'm not sure. I went back to NY anyway.

The guy that gave me the finger the other day on Highway 101 may well have been French, but I couldn't tell.

People who are distressed by what the natives say, shouldn't go to a place where there are natives to distress them. Staying wrapped in their own little cocoons would be advisable.

Spoken like a caring, compassionate liberal...

Another newsflash: there's a few people people scattered around the US who don't like Bush very much either. Some of them are variously, perhaps collectively, mean, distressed and angry. Not all of them are drunk.

I am.

BTW, the appropriate response is, "Well, fuck that slimy whore Chirac!" You guys might end up becoming friends and sharing a few drinks.

Rahsaan
No objection to someone passing comment, but the sort of rudeness described is not on. Bush scared me when he was elected and hasn't stopped scaring me since. I'd love to tell him what I think of him (i'm guessing stronger words than the drunkard!), but using abusive language at tourists (and in this case customers ) is pointless, stupid and disrespectful.

I remember being in Catania (Italy) just after the start of the war. An American tourist went up to some US troops who were staying at the same hotel. He said something like 'You guys are doing a wonderful job out there, keep up the good work' ... and (unsurprisingly?) quite loudly. If someone does that then I'd say the doors are open for political debate (although in that instance, I bit on my tongue and let the comment pass). If they're enjoying a well earned rest, propping up the local economy and treating those around them with respect, then there is no justification in picking a fight with them.

I hope (and believe) this sort of experience is rare. I hope it doesn't give the wrong image of France or Europe.

regards

Ian

Having said all that, no reason not to continue to enjoy the trip and further ones after that. Don't spend your time expecting the next tirade.

I hope it doesn't give the wrong image of France or Europe.

No, we'll keep going to France just as always. I just find it sad this had to happen considering the circumstances with Carole's dad. One a$$hole does not a country make.

BTW, the appropriate response is, "Well, fuck that slimy whore Chirac!" You guys might end up becoming friends and sharing a few drinks.

Keep up man! It's now Sarkozy in power.

Keep up man! It's now Sarkozy in power.

Shhhh! Don't upset him. He still thinks Truman is in office...

If you're saying we have no influence then why hold elections?

Hmm! a very tough question to answer. Both US and UK are effectively two party systems. In UK the policies are virtually identical. In that instance it's difficult to justify the benefits of voting. I still vote but typically for the no hopers (at least with whom I have more political empathy).

Anyway, there's a view over here that most Bush supporters have never set foot outside their state let alone their country and that it's only the democrat supporters that travel internationally No point in preaching to the converted.

regards

Ian

Hmm! a very tough question to answer. Both US and UK are effectively two party systems. In UK the policies are virtually identical.

Maybe on some questions, but there were clear votes than sanctioned Labour for their support of the war (George Galloway as MP in East London) and the same thing has been sending a message to US republicans.

I know elections do not perfectly express the people's will in every detail (nor should they) but they do have their place.

Yes, fair point. Sometimes it's the little stands that get the message across (like the ex-newsreader over here who stood as an anti-sleaze candidate against a member of the previous Tory government).

I do worry sometimes about 'Democracy' and how little influence we really have. Having said that, the volumes of people voting for C-list celebrities in crappy reality shows also worry me

regards

Ian

Ian, just remember one can vote lots of times -- sometimes without limit as to number -- for those C List celebs.

Except perhaps in Chicago, and the lower East Side, one vote is the rule generally.

There is no excuse for bad manners and what you have described is an egregious display of such. (IMHO) I have to maintain a neutral stance on the board.

I'm aware of the elections (see that thread), and delighted by the outcome- Sego is now available! But Sarko hasn't had a chance to prostitute himself like Chirac. I have confidence he will, though, just give him time.

When in France I've been more often mistaken for British. Trying to explain to locals in bad french that you didn't vote for Blair is even worse.

Yes, fair point. Sometimes it's the little stands that get the message across

Yes, but the way the war has been handled in the US is more than a little stand, as politicians en masse have been following public opinion either for or against the war.

Of course there are manipulation effects too.

But, very few members of the Senate or the House voted with their "conscience" concerning the war, rather they wanted to remain popular with voters which also explains the current opposition to Bush among Republicans.

Other issues may not function in the same way however.

But, very few members of the Senate or the House voted with their "conscience" concerning...

...anything. And given the conscience of someone likely to be elected to high office in our current system, maybe this is a plus.

And given the conscience of someone likely to be elected to high office in our current system, maybe this is a plus.

Yes, I never understood why people criticized the Clintons for following polls and praised Bush for following his instinct, because aside from the fact that the comparison is really just a misguided caricature, elected officials are supposed to represent the people's interests and not their own personal opinions.

But that small statement just opened up tons of avenues (and tons of branches of Political Science) so I'll stop now and get back to my work..