Understanding French Opposition
This essay examines the nature of French opposition to the US-led war in Iraq. In recent months this opposition has reinforced many of the negative stereotypes Americans associate with Frenchmen, and boycotts of French wines and “French” fries are now commonplace in the United States. However, writing the French off as “cowards” or “appeasers” is not only misguided but also fails to consider the complex nature of French opposition. Although inextricably linked, the opposition put forth by the French people is not the same as the opposition directed by the French government.
Nonetheless, French President Jacques Chirac and other Gaullist politicians have used the popular opposition to further and justify their own agenda. While the apprehensions of the French people are largely understandable—as their attitudes are a reflection of their tumultuous and bloody past, the motivations behind France’s political actors are not so obvious and are founded in the economic realities and diplomatic-power struggles of the twenty-first century.
Despite what some Americans may argue, the French are not fundamentally opposed to war. In fact France’s readiness to use ground support in both Kosovo and Bosnia outweighed that of the United States. Consequently, in October of 2001, nearly a month after September 11th, France’s popular backing of the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan was seventy-three percent in favor—the highest among Europe’s largest states. The French recognized the security threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban and clearly saw the connection between September 11th and the al Qaeda masterminds. Their support ran afoul only when the US tried connecting the dots between September 11th and Iraq. To say the French are opposed to war or are against fighting terrorism is both inaccurate and inflammatory. The French know first hand the implications of Islamic jihad-driven terrorism, as they have been the target of more terrorist attacks than any other European nation during the last century. The scars of French colonialism in North Africa—particularly in Algeria—are still raw in the minds of many Muslims, and it is this resentment and antipathy that the French fear as the US wages a war in Iraq. The French worry that the short-term military and strategic victories made in Iraq will only breed more contempt and mistrust toward the US—the very “terrorist roots” that the US is aiming to destroy.
The French occupation is a confrontation between exported modernity and an old regime: the French revolutionaries and their dominance over the Ottoman social order that is markedly different in contrast; and, al-Jabarti reports on how it transfers cross-culturally. Levels of contestation, open and/or secretive acceptances give way to losses and gains driven by high emotion – even for this writer. He “describes very carefully every step in the negotiation of the organization of society, from administration to inheritance, from property to charity or from justice to deliberation.”
From 1865 to 1900, the federal government of the United States moderately adopted the laissez faire system. At first, the government did practice laissez faire for it did little except its necessary duties. However, by the 1870's it was violating laissez faire little by little with the small restrictions on railroads and companies. As time progressed, the federal government abandoned laissez faire, for it passed the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.
When one looks at France after Napoleon’s reign, it is clear that he had brought much longed for order and stability. He had also established institutions that embodied the main principles of the revolution. However, it is also evident that many of his policies directly contradict those same principles. Was Napoleon betraying the same revolution that gave him power, or was he merely a pragmatist, who recognised that to consolidate the achievements of the revolution he needed to sacrifice some of those principles? Firstly, in order to determine whether Bonaparte betrayed the revolution, it is necessary to define what one means by “the revolution”.
United States has several laws that ensure that competition among businesses flow rely and new competitors get free access to the market. These laws intend to ensure fair and balanced competitive business practices. However, there are times when some businesses will do anything to gain competitive edge. USA has strong antitrust laws that prohibit fixing market price, price discrimination, conspiring boycott, monopolizing, and adopting unfair business practices. The history of Antitrust laws goes back to 1890 when Congress passed Sherman Act. In 1914, Congress passed two more acts: Federal Trade Commission Act, and Clayton Act. With some revisions, these three acts are still core antitrust acts.
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
Additionally, in an effort to establish and standardize fair trade practices in interstate and international commerce, the government enacted laws that were directed toward labor unions and the labor relations process. These laws have either benefited or were detrimental to labor organizations.
Baker, Charles A. “Review: Two Views of Vichy France, ” The French Review, Vol.51, No. 5, American Association of Teachers of French, (April 1978), pp. 763-764
Build-A-Bear Workshop was an American toy retailer, which was founded by Maxine Clark in 1996 in St. Louis, Missouri. Build-A-Bear Workshop main served teddy beard and other stuffed animals, and accessories for teddy bears and other stuffed animals. According to professor Eisner, Korn, Baugher, and graduate student Vojtkova (2011), “Build-A-Bear Workshop was founded 13 years ago on a simple but powerful idea: to create a successful company with heart” (p. C259). In order to differentiate itself from other toy producers, Build-A-Bear Workshop served customers with interactive experience by “allowing its customers to make, personalize and customize stuffed animals od their choosing” (p. C262). As professor Eisner et al. (2011) concluded, “the company (Build-A-Bear) differentiated itself from the competition with marketing initiatives that facilitated stronger connections with its customers” (p. C262) In addition, Build-A-Bear Workshop exercised its focus strategy by narrowing its product lines. Build-A-Bear Workshop earned a big success in the past decades.
As almost anyone with the slightest knowledge of European history can tell you, the French and the British do not like each other. Some French and British people still hate each other today for issues that occurred 100 of years ago. So on top of the conflict that is already present between France and Great Britain there is a new one in the pursuit of gaining more land and power for one’s cou...
The aim of this essay is to explore the idea of whether the National Front in France is a racist party. The French National Front or the Front National (FN) was founded in 1972 and is a nationalist, socially conservative and economically protectionist party. The party was led by Jean-Marie Le Pen until his resignation in 2011 and is now under the leadership of his daughter Marine Le Pen. Traditionally, the National Front has been seen by many in France as the only legitimate alternative to the established but corrupt mainstream political parties (Girling, 1998: 168). For this reason, it tends to attract protest voters, fed-up traditionalists and the socially and economically deprived (Girling, 1998: 168). Whilst the National Front attracts a variety of supporters, it has been argued that racism fuels a great deal of the party’s political policies and stance. Racism ‘provides the sharpest focus for popular fear and anger’ through blaming France’s minority Muslim Arab and black African populations for the current crisis in civil society (Girling, 1998: 168). These prejudices have been exacerbated by fears and anxiety over immigration, traditionalism and a resentment of foreigners. As is the case in many European nations, it is felt that immigrants to France are ‘taking away our jobs’ and ‘living at the expense of the French’ (Girling, 1998: 168). However, the National Front has gone under something of an image overhaul in recent years since the appointment of Marine Le Pen as leader in 2011. This ‘de-demonization’ strategy, which has served to increase the party’s popularity through softening its image and making its policies on immigration and so forth appear more acceptable to the mainstream (Mayer, 2013: 160). For these reasons, ...
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
The Declaration declares that all French citizens must be guaranteed their natural born rights of “liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” In the Declaration, it disputes that there is a need for law that protects the citizens of Fra...
Nardo, Don. A. The French Revolution. San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999. Print.
According to the conceptual framework, the potential users of financial statements are investors, creditors, suppliers, employees, customers, governments and agencies, and the general public (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2006). The primary users are investors, creditors, and those who advise them. It goes on to define the criteria that make up each potential user, as well as, the limitations of financial reporting. The FASB explicitly states that financial reporting is “but one source of information needed by those who make investment, credit, and similar resource allocation decisions. Users also need to consider pertinent information from other sources, and be aware of the characteristics and limitations of the information in them” (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2006). With this in mind, it is still particularly difficult to determine whom the financials should be catered towards and what level of prudence is necessary for quality judgment.
According to Armstrong (2012), a SWOT analysis is one of the most analytical used tools. He explains that this type of analysis is a “looking in” and “looking out” approach that encompasses internal business elements as well as external elements. Coate (2007), states that a SWOT analysis is the “fundamental methodology” for devising the organizations strategy. I will briefly discuss and describe each strength, weakness, opportunity and threat listed in the matrix above.