The following was forwarded to me by a European reader -- pointing out that American political correctness has undermined European efforts to rein in third-world thuggery
Undoubtedly a strong anti-Americanism is prevalent in Europe. It is also true that this sentiment is mainly a kingdom of the left; at least, leftists are those who lead the street dance. However the roots of this sentiment are deeper than the apparent schizophrenia of these persons that bite the hand that has protected them from the communist takeover. In order to prove this assertion lets think of three words and an half: Suez, Algeria, Africa (and Falklands).
SUEZ. In 1956, Nasser the autocratic ruler of Egypt took over and closed the Suez Channel closing the naval route between Europe and Asia. Great Britain, France and Israel took a successful military action to reopen the Channel but the US had a preference for Arabs and other Third Word so called nationalists over Europeans. As a result the initial victory became a humiliating retreat.
ALGERIA. It was a French colony from 1830 until 1962. Anyway the French conquered Algeria in order to stop the continuous pirate actions of the Arabs in the Mediterranean and after the dey (local king) of Alger slapped the face of the French envoy. An independence war begun in 1954 and ended with the defeat of France; all the time the US pressed France to surrender.
AFRICA. All we know what a tragedy has became the retreat of the colonial powers. The last one to surrender was Portugal a small and the most western country of Europe. It sustained a war for 13 years in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea against the UN and all the usual people. How did this war begin in 1961? With a really nasty attack against white people - for instance opening the belly of pregnant women - in order to impose terror and force people to flight. And who paid for this initial terrorist actions? The US then under President Kennedy. What happened in Angola is more or less what happened in all the Black Africa: the expulsion of colonial powers followed by the ascension of very nasty rulers. But for the US the end of colonial rule in Africa was a strategic aim, no matter the consequences.
Falklands. Only by small chance the same "anti-colonialism" did not prevail in the Falklands; the ambassador Jane Kirkpatrick took the side of Argentina, only the President was a certain Reagan.
For decades the anti-colonialism of the US reduced European powers to world irrelevance and Africa is suffering its nasty rulers. Some of us can be rational and understand that our interests are with the US and that without the military power of the US civilization risks to be lost, like it has been the case between 1939 and 1989. But it should be understood that other people are not so rational.
It is now very common for American conservatives to condemn Europe for its failure to stand up for Western civilization. But the Europeans were doing that until quite recently -- when America stopped them. No wonder the Europeans have given up. So why did America do that? Because of misguided ideology. America's own racist past caused them to see as racism and "colonialism" what were perfectly reasonable actions by European countries -- JR
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH