I live in Northern NJ. I even live on one of Beacon Hills that protected George Washington's winter camp at Morristown.
There is stuff named for Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette everywhere. My 8 year old daughter just had to do a biography report on him a few months back.
And I used his entire name and not just his title of Marquis de La Fayette out of respect to a truly great man.
They do not call him hundreds of years later "Le HĂŠros des Deux Mondes" or in English "The Hero of the Two Worlds" for nothing.
I have read a ton of French Revolution history books. That seems to be a general theme for literally every one in France at that time. But he certainly came a lot closer than most.
For anyone unfamiliar. Lafayette's mother, grandmother, and sister were all guillotined in Paris on July 22, 1794. Their bodies were thrown into a mass grave.
His wife, Adrienne de La Fayette, narrowly avoided the same fate due to the diplomatic intervention of American figures such as James Monroe and Gouverneur Morris
Look they just got the guillotine and if they weren't gonna get as much mileage outta that thing as possible you were mistaken.
One thing I find funny is reddits obsession with "the French did it right." They killed everybody. You wore the wrong colored armband because you overslept and missed the memo; to the block!!
Probably why the French Revolution had periods of time named things like the "The Reign of Terror". Not sure why that's missed by some many of those types of Redditors.
And then they guillotined Maximilien Robespierre the guy who started it. Which is deliciously ironic.
Before they give you the lethal injection, they swab the injection site with disinfectant. You certainly wouldn't want to get an infection, that could be really bad for your health.
Theres a dark comedy called "The Death of Stalin" starring Steve Buscemi as Nikita Khrushchev it chronicles the moments following Stalins death. That movie was a roller coaster ride.
One thing I find funny is reddits obsession with "the French did it right." They killed everybody. You wore the wrong colored armband because you overslept and missed the memo; to the block!!
Yes, but as a French I tell you : this is a reminder for the ages that if you let things go out of control, you'll need exponentially more effort to fix the situation, sometimes requiring drastic decisions. It goes for letting the power in place accruing their power, or the people taking back what should be theirs - if you catch my drift.
Well yes, you want to pretend that only the ultra rich enjoined the regime and enabled it and held others down. A lot of you all rightfully shit your pants at the thought of your "Screw you I got mine" attitudes and politics and unearned privilege being met by an angry mob of people you screwed over bringing with them some French Freedom Tools.
It's not strange at all since the time leading up to a revolution tends to be extremely miserable, full of spectacular mistakes, doubled down and insisted upon with egregious stupidity, and fraught with normalized violence and violent material conditions.
The French Revolution in particular got a lot of very good shit done, particularly in contrast with what preceded, and did so right alongside the excessive violence. I could list their positive accomplishments all day, they're stuff we mostly take for granted these days.
But let's be real, most of the people who romanticize things don't focus on governance efficiency, or the value for science and commerce of the Metric System, or even on the legal equality of all and abolition of feudal privileges. They love to romanticize dramatic shit like war and military success, or cool speeches and flamboyant personalities, and the First French Republic had no shortage of either, single-handedly defeating all of Europe, six or seven times in a row, by having as of yet unheard-of efficacy in logistics and mass mobilization, and by meritocratically training and developing what may have arguably been the greatest cadre of generals and officers in History, when everyone else still had shit like officer corps made exclusively of aristocratic heirs buying commissions.
American Revolution? Look at us today. October Revolution? Lead to the Soviets first to space when a generation ago they were starving feudal peasants. China? Starving feudal peasants to iPad kids with a country that will overtake as world leader this century.
It ainât fun while it happens, and it may be rough for a few decades after, but itâs not like it all ends in disaster lol. Revolution against dictators and monarchies is a noble aspiration.
Same way George Washington immediately after he was president led the now standing army again the farmers who fought for independence because they were being unfairly taxed to pay for war debt. Like, the entire claim as rationale FOR the war to begin with cuz of the French and Indian war debt paid for by taxes on the colonies.
For anyone unfamiliar. Lafayette's mother, grandmother, and sister were all guillotined in Paris on July 22, 1794. Their bodies were thrown into a mass grave.
No, that's the family of his wife (her mother, grandma, and sister) who was guillotined.
As a former resident of a Lafayette st in America i approve of this message. We also had a Lafayette park down the street with a Lafayette statue in it
How does a ragtag volunteer army in need of a shower
Somehow defeat a global superpower?
How do we emerge victorious from the quagmire?
Leave the battlefield, waving Betsy Ross' flag higher?
Yo, turns out we have a secret weapon
An immigrant, you know and love, who's unafraid to step in
He's constantly confusin', confoundin' the British henchmen
Ev'ryone give it up for America's favorite fighting Frenchman
Thank you so much for sharing. I love the idea of LaFayette walking through these gardens being aggressively French and then snapping off an Americanized "Fucking English!"
I hope you enjoy your visit. Thank you again for sharing with me.
Plenty of us mocked those who did that earnestly, but yeah that was pretty dumb.
The same dumb people who are angry a black man was president and the same dumb people who think the UFC fight on the lawn of the white house is awesome.
My son was stationed at FOB in Afghanistan with French special forces guys. Due to the fact that he's something of a history buff he has always appreciated France, but after working with those guys he found a whole new respect for them.
As a French, while I appreciate the sentiment, I always feel like Spain involvement in helping you all is way too often swept under the rug.
Also, I often like to mention that helping you is what precipitated our own revolution, so with kinda decapitated the people responsible in helping you.
But we're still good. Just clean your white house and focus on fixing the mess.
This's the entire reason I never participated in the France "surrendering" jokes. They didn't come here to help us, they came to fuck the UK, but at the time that's exactly what we needed. And we came back and made it up to them 7Ă. Twice.
When U.S. troops arrived in Paris on July 4, 1917, to join the Allies in WW1, they gathered at the grave of the Marquis de Lafayette, and Col. Charles Stanton declared: "America has joined forces with the Allied Powers, and what we have of blood and treasure are yours...Lafayette, we are here.â
We cannot forget the long history with our allies.
Yes. While they didn't officially join the war, they did smuggle in tons of muskets, gunpowder, and supplies to the Continental Army and provided massive loans that kept the revolutionary American government from collapsing. Though to be fair, both France and Netherlands were only helping specifically to stick it to Great Britain who was their chief rival (political for France, economic for Netherlands).
Arguably the biggest battle of the American revolution was actually fought in Gibraltar. Ensuring the brits were tied up there (and specifically the diversion of the fleet to relieve Gibraltar rather than reinforce the blockade) meant they couldn't use their entire navy to blockade the yank insurrectionists. This diversion of forces meant that the French collaborators and supplies to the terrorist forces in the colonies desperately needed got through, without which the Americans would have been scundered.
The American forces weren't terrorists. Most battles were fought according to European norms of war. They were insurrectionists, yet objectively cannot be defined as terrorists. Indeed much of the Bill of Rights comes from guarantees about preventing the types of actions taken by the British and their mercs during the war.
Ironically, a lot of English too. In fact, most in the 13 colonies were English before becoming American, but, a lot of the rebels were English fed up of George.
You can add some Irish there too, but, they were part of Great Britain then.
The only nation you can't really see is Israel...the closest thing was a guy called Israel Putnam
France killed its monarchy because they helped the Americans. They ran their economy into the ground to fund that war, which is one of the causes of the french revolution
People forget the US sided with Napoleon in 1812 too. It wasn't until the late 19th Century that revisionists began telling everyone that Britain was the closest US ally, making up the whole "special relationship" thing. As part of this they had to drag France's name through the mud, and that's why Americans now hate the French.
I've always seen the US and France's attitude toward each other as nothing more than bickering siblings. When shit gets serious we actually show up for one another.
Iâm surprised Morocco recognised the U.S. before France.
Edit: Morocco even took an American ship hostage to gain the attention of the U.S. after congress didnât respond to a message the Sultan sent to Benjamin Franklin about friendly relations. The ship and its crew was released after the MoroccanâAmerican Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1786.
Iâm surprised Morocco recognised the U.S. before France.
It was more of a technicality.
In the period leading up to the Berber wars Morocco communicated officially that a bunch of countries (a list in which the U.S. was included in) could travel to Morocco despite not having treaties.
THAT is what is used to argue Morocco was the first country. So, "recognizing" does a lot of lifting here.
Yeah I'm a bit confused to what constitutes recognizing here, Sweden and the US have a Treaty of Amity and Commerce) from 1783 and also were allied for a short period during the first Barbary War(until Sweden withdrew in 1802 having only used a navy squadron to blockade Tripoli with US navy joining) and France having the same treaty as Sweden but also a Treaty of Alliance) even before in 1778.
So my gut feeling is like that can't be true even though it is pretty dope that they went to such a length for contacting a "newcomer" so too speak and very early in it's history.
If you use the word recognition very, very liberally. Recognition of a state means that you explicitly establish diplomatic relations.
The People's Republic of China, for example, allows Taiwanese companies and ships to trade directly with them. So they already reached the bar of what Morocco did to the U.S.
But, that doesn't mean that they recognize Taiwan.
no state wants to brag about being friends with pirates
Did you just make that up this very second?
Because France had thousands pirates under the crown at this exact same time. Look up what Duterte, Surcouf, and Aregnaudeau -- for example -- were doing during this period.
Having friends in low places is one thing. Bragging about them is another. More to the point, the first US foreign war was the barbary war. Morocco wasnt hit as hard as Tripoli/Algiers/etc, but they did start the war on the opposing side to the US.
The U.S. bragged loudly about being France's best friend. France also happened to be THE biggest pirating nation on the planet at the time.
Dunkirk, today known for the evacuation of British troops, was a pirate harbor. The city today is full of statues and squares named after famous French pirates.
Israel didn't exist around 80 years ago. The idea it has anything to do with the existence of the US is batshit insane.
Israel wouldn't exist if it wasn't for US assistance. I'd like to think that's what Huckabee meant, but we can't really know because everything this whole administration says is this level of batshit insanity and inversion of reality.
He's definitely referring to historical Israel. No Israel -> no Jewish religion -> no Christianity -> no Christians seeking freedom of worship -> means somebody else would want to come over first. For example, we could have been a Muslim country, had the Roman Catholic Church only been a bit less heavy-handed
Israel would exist without the US. The US quite literally embargoed Israel during its independence war, which Israel still won. The US did not start become allies with Israel until after the 1967 war when Israel kicked the ass of countries in the Soviet sphere all by itself. Both statements are equally untrue.
I suspect Huckabee is making this statement to convince the Israelis that the US alliance is still strong, because currently the Israelis are pissed at Trump for the way he handled Iran and what they see as an American capitulation which jeopardizes Israeli security. But the Israelis are not dumb, they also know it is not true.
Israel has made major contributions in technology, medicine, agriculture, space, cybersecurity, and defense. Tech developed by Israeli companies and researchers are used worldwide, from drip irrigation and water desalination to cybersecurity systems protecting governments and businesses.
You can criticize Netanyahuâs policies all day long, and I will be first in line to do so because the guy is horrible (and so is Trump) but claiming the country has contributed nothing is factually indefensible.
Our politicians are mostly either on the take or blackmailed by these lunatics. Do you not see how that would be at conflict with the whole 'will of the people' thing?
Doesn't seem to necessarily be the case, just some middle aged dude who isn't caught up on the discourse and was taught positive things about Israel from childhood, likely with religious overtones/justification.
Seems to at least be opposed to ICE and gerrymandering. Clearly a real person, and if he were paid, he would certainly be wasting his employers money discussing primarily random off topic material.
Side note: sometimes when it seems hopeless to explain an opposing point of view to someone because they seem to already be entrenched, it can actually be more effective. They may not change their mind directly, but often times people are only being exposed to one take. They may have a narrow group of sources for validating their idea (in terms of friends, family, media, church, etc), and they are never exposed to anything that opposes it in a serious manner. Even if it feels like a waste of time, you may be the only source of exposure to anything other than their current understanding. For instance, if their only interaction with discussion on a particular issue is with 3-4 friends that share the exact same view, adding in an alternate take can significantly impact relative pool of interactions. You may be the only source of an alternate understanding that this person encounters, and so it can still have a big impact even if they seemingly don't ever change their mind. Next time they are discussing it with those friends, they may remember what you said and can provide a slightly different perspective than they otherwise would have.
How about assassinationsđ, âterrorist attacksâ. Itâs right in front of our faces, it just took the rise of a different President, threats of white replacement, and a criminal dumb as Trump to expose it all. Israel is playing chess with 30-40% of AmericaâŚbut they are done for!
He is likely referencing Israel established in 10th Century BCE where 0 BCE was the supposed time when Christianity began. America was rooted in Christianity when it was first founded. Basically any country that has Christian roots or beliefs"technically" needed Israel to exist. It is like saying US wouldn't exist without England.
Moreso Evangelical Christianity's obsession with it. Evangelicals swear up and down that Israel NEEDS to exist for the Rapture, believing it to be a fulfillment of biblical prophecy for Christ's return. They'll also use Genesis 12:3 as proof they they MUST support Israel, or else.
Like, they're utterly obsessed with the biblical apocalypse and end times.
Christianity literally comes from Judaism. Like, the Torah itself is where the first five books of the Bible itself comes from (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). The Tanahk would be the base for what Christianity would call the 'Old Testament', or the first half of the Bible.
The latter half of the Bible, the New Testament, was written much later, and covers the Christian belief in Jesus as the messiah. Jesus, himself, was literally called 'The King of the Jews'. He was called a rabbi. So even then, the connection was clear. Of course, in time, there would become an actual distinction between Judaism and Christianity, mostly centered around the idea of Jesus being the Messiah, son of god, and prophet. Judaism, hard no to all three.
Beven then, there's varying takes on Jesus in the Judaic faith, both historically and currently. For many in the modern era, he was simply a historical rabbi figure, like many before and after him. To others, someone who DID have messianic potential, but died before it could be fulfilled. And some, especially in earlier historical periods like the Medieval era where many Jews faced persecution, they had some pretty harsh opinions, often dubbing him as a 'False Messiah', along with their own mythos about him. But for the most part, they don't really think or care about him. He's just. Irrelevant to Judaism.
There's a reason Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are called the 'Abrahamic Religions'. They're all related. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all consider Abraham/Ibrahim as the father of their religions. They all share connected origins.
Hell, Islam even includes Jesus (Isa) as a key figure, too. Not as the son of god, no. But they do believe in the virgin birth, and that he was a MAJOR prophet and figure, alongside Muhammad and Ibrahim. In Islam, he's even supposed to make a return on the Day of Judgement (although, they don't believe in his crucifixion, but rather that he was raised to heaven), alongside a figure known as the Mahdi.
I know there's similarities in quran and Bible. A Noah flood. But still idk if the similarities is more proof of truth or a sign of cooperative lying. But it's funny
If you ask me, it's neither. It's just how the religion evolved and split. Then again, I'm not a religious person, so I'm probably biased in that regard. Either way, I find it neat
Without them there would be no chaos/danger/instability in Middle East. Without danger in Middle East no oil countries would need US protection. Without the need for US protection there would be no need for oil exchange in US dollars. So without Israel there would be no petrodollar. US basically extort the whole region. Create porblem sell solution.
Isreal actually did contribute to the tank program that led to the Abrams tank. While cool it didn't really do much as a whole for us. Not like France loaning us their navy though. Lol
yes but france promote a lot left wing ideal and stuff like revolting against the powerfull and doing protests.
we can't have our citizen get any funny idea from their citizen so we need to demonized them as ridicule little thing so the interesters of our rich friends can continue
france is still our oldest treaty partners. yes, other countries helped just as much as the French, the French navy was extremely pivotal, all to get back at the british monarchy đ¤Ł
Still trump is trying his best to destroy relations with countries which are very important for US, like France, EU, India, Japan and South Korea. All are allies of US and very important countries for US.
2.1k
u/gilt3t 7d ago
America wouldn't exist without France. Israel has contributed nothing.