Diplomatie: Vous avez dit pays de merde ? (It’s not shit holes, it’s shit shows, stupid !)

Lorsqu’un Sanhédrin s’est déclaré unanime pour condamner, l’accusé sera acquitté. Le Talmud
Un jeune homme à cheveux longs grimpait le Golgotha. La foule sans tête  était à la fête  Pilate a raison de ne pas tirer dans le tas  C’est plus juste en somme  d’abattre un seul homme.  Ce jeune homme a dit la vérité  Il doit être exécuté… Guy Béart
Tous les problèmes du monde viennent actuellement de ce petit pays de merde Israël. Pourquoi accepterions-nous une troisième guerre mondiale à cause de ces gens là? Daniel Bernard (ambassadeur de France, Londres, décembre 2001)
Over the past few days, I have been the subject of grave accusations because of a comment I am reported to have made during a conversation with Lord Black. The facts are: while we were discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I pointed out to Lord Black that this tragedy was taking place in a geographically limited area (I even specified that it was the equivalent of three French departments) that for 40 years had been suffering from a conflict whose equitable solution seems more out of reach than ever. Of course, I never meant to insult Israel or any other part of that region. The deliberately biased presentation of this conversation in some circles, accompanied by malicious accusations, is deeply shocking and insulting. Daniel Bernard
In the course of the discussion the ambassador referred to ‘little Israel’ in the sense that it is geographically small, but that nevertheless the scale of the consequences is huge and the repercussions around the world are tremendous. Yves Charpentier (French embassy spokesman)
Bernard assure ne pas s’en souvenir et le Quai d’Orsay a qualifié l’attribution de cette phrase à l’ambassadeur de France d’insinuations malveillantes. Libération
Beaucoup de déçus dans la lutte entre le monde islamique et les infidèles ont essayé de rejeter la responsabilité en annonçant qu’il n’est pas possible d’avoir un monde sans les États-Unis et le sionisme. Mais vous savez que ce sont un but et un slogan réalisables. Pour étayer ses propos, le président se réfère à la chute, dans l’histoire récente, de plusieurs régimes que personne ne voyait sombrer. Lorsque notre cher imam (Khomeiny) a annoncé que le régime (du Shah) devait être supprimé, beaucoup de ceux qui prétendaient être politiquement bien informés ont déclaré que ce n’était pas possible. Qui pouvait penser qu’un jour, nous pourrions être témoins de l’effondrement de l’empire de l’Est (Union soviétique) ? L’Imam a annoncé que Saddam devait s’en aller puis a ajouté qu’il s’affaiblirait plus vite que personne ne l’imagine.  L’Imam (Khomeiny) a annoncé que le régime occupant Jérusalem devait disparaître de la page du temps. Ahmadinejad (Conférence du monde sans sionisme, 25 octobre 2005)
L’Imam disait que ce régime qui occupe Jérusalem doit être rayé de la carte. Ahmadinejad (traduction fautive de l’Islamic Republic New Agency)
Mess is the president’s diplomatic term; privately, he calls Libya a “shit show,” in part because it’s subsequently become an isis haven—one that he has already targeted with air strikes. It became a shit show, Obama believes, for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism. Jeffrey Goldberg (The Atlantic, April 2016)
You said at the outset that we need to phase this. I think the first phase is what Chuck and Steny and I have mentioned, and others as well: We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging. We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity visas. Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months with Michael Bennet, and a number of — Bob Menendez, and Schumer, and McCain, and Jeff Flake — and it took us six months to put it together. We don’t have six months for the DACA bill. Dick Durbin
The people coming across the southern border live in hellholes. They don’t like that. They want to come here. Our problem is we can’t have everybody in the world who lives in a hellhole come to America. There are 11 million people coming through the southern border ‘cause they come from countries where they can’t find work, and life is miserable. So it seems to me that if you can control who gets a job you’ve gone a long way in controlling illegal immigration. Because as long as the jobs are available in America you can’t build a fence high enough to stop people. (…) I wasn’t slandering Mexico, I was just talking about all the places people want to leave, for whatever reason. Lindsay Graham (2013)
President Donald Trump is absolutely right. When you have heads of state who mess with the constitutions to perpetuate their power. When you have rebel factions that kill children, disembowel women as saints, who mutilate innocent civilians. Mamady Traore (sociologist, Guinea)
La gauche angélique et irresponsable fait faussement passer Emmanuel Macron pour un opposant déterminé à l’immigration de peuplement. (…) Cet étalement de bons sentiments en dit long sur l’aveuglement face au raidissement de l’opinion. Partout en Europe, et singulièrement en France, les gens rejettent majoritairement une immigration qui ne s’assimile plus et qui porte en elle un nouvel antisémitisme. Reste que Macron n’est pas l’homme à poigne que croient voir les inconditionnels de l’accueil pour tous. Son soutien à la politique d’Angela Merkel, qui a fait entrer en Allemagne plus d’un million de « migrants » musulmans en 2015, ajouté à son mépris des « populistes » qui réclament le retour aux frontières, ne font pas du président un obstacle sérieux à l’idéologie immigrationniste. Tandis que les pays d’Europe de l’Est, qui ont déjà sauvé l’Europe de l’envahisseur ottoman en 1683, sonnent une nouvelle fois l’alarme sur une histoire qui se répète, Macron joint sa voix à celle de l’Union européenne pour accabler la Pologne ou la Hongrie. Le député Guy Verhofstadt a récemment sermonné ces deux nations : « Il n’y a pas de place pour des pays qui rejettent nos valeurs. Toute référence à l’identité nationale est potentiellement fanatique ». Pour sa part, le commissaire européen aux migrations, Dimitris Avramopoulos, a admis (Le Figaro, vendredi), parlant d’ »impératif moral » mais aussi d’impératif « économique et social » : « Il est temps de regarder en face la vérité. Nous ne pourrons pas arrêter la migration ». Macron l’européen demeure, jusqu’à présent, dans cette logique de l’ouverture et du remplacement. Ivan Rioufol
Autant je n’apprecie pas l’homme mais cette fois-ci,Il a dit tout haut ce que les autres pensent tout bas.cette sortie mediatique doit interpeller nos decideurs africains qui appauvrissent leurs peuples.qui sont obligEs d’immigrer a la recherche d’une vie meilleure et certains au peril de leurs vie. Lûcïus L’inusable Ngoy
Il lui fallait un minimum de diplomatie. Il a parlé tout haut ce que les autres pensent tout bas. C est aux presidents africains de faire respecter leurs gouvernés. Madeleine Ngendakumana
J’espère juste que les dirigeants africains qui se plient devant les USA en tireront des leçons et seront agir dorénavant avec dignité sous la dépendance des grandes nations. André Bernard
Les autres utilisent les paroles diplomatiques pour cajoler les maux,mais Trump n’a pas besoin de ca. Il est direct dans ses propos et les diplomates les traitent d’un malade mental.Non,non,non il dit ce que les autres disent tt bas car depuis que les paroles diplomatiques sont prononces les maux ont atteint un niveau inexprimable. Adjuabe Tanzi
Mr Trump peut être qualifié de tous les maux sauf d’être hypocrite. Il reste cohérent ici et ailleurs lorsqu’il parle du système des nations unies , de l’ otan ou autres G5 SAHEL. Amara Tidiani Kante
N a t il pas raison? Pourtant en se retournant la tete on peut voir des presidents a vie, une pauvrete extreme, des pilleurs de l economie, des manipulations constitutionnelle et beaucoup d autres choses, alors si tu veux etre respecter, respecte toi le premier. Balde Moutarou
Ce président est tres important pour l’afrique! il aide les africains à faire l’introspection! il a dit la verité! mais ces africains qui viennent chez-vous cher puissant président ont peur de l’insécurité créée par des dirigeants africains mediocres et qui veulent s’eterniser au pouvoir! comme tu es puissant, aide les africains à faire partir ces dirigeants mediocres et ils ne viendront plus là chez-toi au paradis! je t’admire puisque tu n’est pas hypocrite, donc diplomate comme les autres le disent! Pascal Murhula
c’est que j’aime chez ce monsieur quoi qu’on dise de lui il ne pas hypocrite, il parle tout haut ce que les autres disent tout bas. il est temps de faire comprendre aux médiocres qu’ils sont mesquins. Ntinti Luzolo Junior (RFI)
Trump Is a Racist. Period. I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown. The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky. (…) The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged others. (…) Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed. Charles M. Blow (NYT)
The recent protests by black players in the National Football League were rather sad for their fruitlessness. They may point to the end of an era for black America, and for the country generally—an era in which protest has been the primary means of black advancement in American life. There was a forced and unconvincing solemnity on the faces of these players as they refused to stand for the national anthem. They seemed more dutiful than passionate, as if they were mimicking the courage of earlier black athletes who had protested: Tommie Smith and John Carlos, fists in the air at the 1968 Olympics; Muhammad Ali, fearlessly raging against the Vietnam War; Jackie Robinson, defiantly running the bases in the face of racist taunts. The NFL protesters seemed to hope for a little ennoblement by association.(…) For the NFL players there was no real sacrifice, no risk and no achievement. Still, in black America there remains a great reverence for protest. Through protest—especially in the 1950s and ’60s—we, as a people, touched greatness. Protest, not immigration, was our way into the American Dream. Freedom in this country had always been relative to race, and it was black protest that made freedom an absolute. It is not surprising, then, that these black football players would don the mantle of protest. The surprise was that it didn’t work. They had misread the historic moment. They were not speaking truth to power. Rather, they were figures of pathos, mindlessly loyal to a black identity that had run its course. What they missed is a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless. We blacks are, today, a free people. It is as if freedom sneaked up and caught us by surprise. (…) Freedom came to blacks with an overlay of cruelty because it meant we had to look at ourselves without the excuse of oppression. Four centuries of dehumanization had left us underdeveloped in many ways, and within the world’s most highly developed society. When freedom expanded, we became more accountable for that underdevelopment. So freedom put blacks at risk of being judged inferior, the very libel that had always been used against us. To hear, for example, that more than 4,000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016 embarrasses us because this level of largely black-on-black crime cannot be blamed simply on white racism. (…) That’s why, in the face of freedom’s unsparing judgmentalism, we reflexively claim that freedom is a lie. We conjure elaborate narratives that give white racism new life in the present: “systemic” and “structural” racism, racist “microaggressions,” “white privilege,” and so on. All these narratives insist that blacks are still victims of racism, and that freedom’s accountability is an injustice. We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you “truly black.” Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question. (…) For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present. This is the expectation behind the NFL protests and the many protests of groups like Black Lives Matter. The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive. To a degree, black America’s self-esteem is invested in the illusion that we live under a cloud of continuing injustice. (…) Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation. But the NFL protests may be a harbinger of change. They elicited considerable resentment. There have been counterprotests. TV viewership has gone down. Ticket sales have dropped. What is remarkable about this response is that it may foretell a new fearlessness in white America—a new willingness in whites (and blacks outside the victim-focused identity) to say to blacks what they really think and feel, to judge blacks fairly by standards that are universal. We blacks have lived in a bubble since the 1960s because whites have been deferential for fear of being seen as racist. The NFL protests reveal the fundamental obsolescence—for both blacks and whites—of a victim-focused approach to racial inequality. It causes whites to retreat into deference and blacks to become nothing more than victims. It makes engaging as human beings and as citizens impermissible, a betrayal of the sacred group identity. Black victimization is not much with us any more as a reality, but it remains all too powerful as a hegemony. Shelby Steele
I have interviewed six presidents of the United States. I have traveled with them. I have been in their homes. They’ve been in my home on multiple occasions. I have flown on Air Force One with them and commercial jets and private jets and car caravans and Winnebagos. Went to Disney World with one. They all have used the ‘S-word.’ Even that old gentleman, Ronald Reagan, would sometimes occasionally, rarely use the ‘F-word.’ So, the White house is going to endure. Doug Wead
Sometimes choice words were reserved for the political opponents. President Reagan famously referred to enemies a few times as “SOBs.” While former President Obama once called Mitt Romney a « bullshitter » in a “Rolling Stone” interview. One of the more profane presidents in recent history was Richard Nixon. Nixon was caught on White House tapes using numerous vulgarities, including some offensive terms about gay people. Likewise, President Johnson was accused of often using the “N-word” when talking about African-Americans. Some of these remarks were caught on video. In 2000, George W. Bush was caught on a hot mic during a campaign rally calling Adam Clymer, a reporter with The New York Times, a « major league asshole. » In fact, both the younger Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, are quoted in Mark Updegrove’s book, “The Last Republicans,” as dropping the “F-bomb.” George W. Bush even had this to say about two former colleagues. « [Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] never made one f—-ing decision. » Even the silver-tongued President Clinton had his moments. In 2008, Clinton forgot to hang up a phone call with reporter Susan Phillips before saying he wouldn’t take any « shit » from Obama, then a candidate. The Hill
« Shithole countries » : l’expression grossière utilisée par Donald Trump suscite un tollé mondial depuis vendredi. Mais comment est elle traduite ? Incontestablement vulgaire, le terme « shithole » a nécessité quelques trésors d’imagination aux médias du monde entier pour exprimer de manière fidèle la réalité de la grossièreté de Trump sans trop choquer le public. Car Shithole se réfère aux latrines extérieures pour désigner un endroit particulièrement repoussant. En français, de nombreux médias, dont l’AFP ou LCI, ont retenu la formule très crue de « pays de merde », proche du sens littéral et conforme au style souvent sans fioritures de Donald Trump. Des dictionnaires bilingues comme le Harrap’s suggèrent toutefois des alternatives moins grossières, comme « porcherie », « taudis » ou « trou paumé ». LCI
Dismissing places where human rights abuses, hunger, and disease are rampant as “shitholes” without offering a viable alternative for running their governments is unproductive. But silencing anyone who dares speak the truth about these places – and what that says about their ruling ideologies – is even worse. Frances Martel

Attention: un pays de merde peut en cacher un autre !

Alors qu’après la reconnaissance de Jérusalem

C’est avec la même belle unanimité …

Que nos belles âmes condamnent à nouveau …

Une expression volée du président Trump lors d’une réunion à huis clos avec des sénateurs américains …

Sur les « pays merdiques » – l’anglais étant plus proche de « pays taudis » ou « trous paumés – dont les ressortissants continuent à se bousculer, on se demande bien pourquoi, pour entrer aux Etats-Unis …

Comment ne pas rappeler …

Sans parler au sein même de l’ONU de certains pays appelant explicitement à l’annihilation d’un de ses membres …

A cette tristement fameuse petite phrase, volée elle aussi il y a 17 ans, d’un ambassadeur de France sur le « petit pays de merde Israël » …

Ou à cette allusion en privée de l’ancien président Obama sur le « show de merde » libyen …

Ou à l’évocation il y a quelques semaines par le même sénateur ayant probablement dénoncé M. Trump …

Des termes mêmes d’immigration « en chaine » qu’il lui reprochait quelques jours plus tard …

Ou la référence il y a à peine cinq ans du sénateur Graham aux « trous d’enfer » mexicains ?

Et comment ne pas  repenser …

Alors que contre les derniers défenseurs de la terre plate, l’essouflement du mouvement des droits civiques afro-américain est de plus en plus patent …

Comme le confirme la réaction – « inattendue » dixit RFI –  de nombre de commentateurs africains

A l’instar des millions de migrants des pays évoqués votant ou s’apprêtant à voter avec leurs pieds …

Tandis qu’au niveau de nos élites et face à l’immigration clandestine, c’est l’aveuglement à tous les étages …

A la fameuse chanson de Guy Béart …

Sur les appels, vieux comme le monde, à l’exécution de celui qui dit  la vérité ?

Martel: The Value of Calling a Shithole a ‘Shithole’

In a news cycle full of poverty, war, political intrigue, and all the usual torment, America’s media have wasted valuable time this week debating the value of President Donald Trump’s use of a bad word.

Leftist journalists, politicians, and celebrities have scuttled out of the woodwork to decry that Trump allegedly branded some unspecified nations “shitholes.” The use of the term, they argue, proves the president is racist – and, as we all learned during the Obama era, all “racist” talk must be silenced.

The circumstances surrounding how we got to this point in the news cycle – where a nation is hanging on to every word of the president’s, and this word happens to be “shithole” – matter little in comparison to what this outbreak of decency among the elite liberal left exposes. It is a fact that those of us with family roots in oppressed nations know all too well: the left divides the world into “paradises” and “shitholes” all the time, depending on how much money there is to be had in duping apolitical Americans into buying their classifications.

It takes barely any time to find a handful of examples of profiteers selling naive thrill seekers the notion that any variety of impoverished, exploited underdeveloped country is a secret oasis full of exotic beauty and free of the “stain” of Western luxury.

“North Korea is probably one of the safest places on Earth to visit provided you follow the laws as provided by our documentation and pre-tour briefings,” Young Pioneer Tours, the company that swindled 22-year-old Otto Warmbier into an excruciating state murder, still boasts on its website today. “North Korean’s [sic] are friendly and accommodating, if you let them into your world and avoid insulting their beliefs or ideology.”

“Deeply embedded in the past, Belarus offers a rare insight into a bygone world,” the British travel website Wanderlust boasts of Europe’s last remaining communist nation, which remains heavily contaminated after Soviet negligence resulted in 2.2 million citizens being bombarded with radioactive waste in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. “Located in the heart of Europe, Belarus is a living museum to Soviet Communism.”

“For 2,500 years, this powerful country has entranced, mystified and beguiled the world,” the New York Times boasts of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the Times offers its wealthiest subscribers tours to some of the world’s most repressive destinations through its “journeys” travel program). The tour includes a tour of the “family home of the religious leader who engineered Iran’s transition to an Islamic republic,” presumably former Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomenei.

“Though Iran often rejects Western ways and is frequently under fire for its positions on human rights, its nuclear program and Israel, its role as a birthplace of civilization cannot be denied,” the Times gushes.

“The Republic of Congo is on the cusp of becoming one of the finest ecotourism destinations in Africa,” the travel guide publisher Lonely Planet‘s website claims, listing “a pleasantly laid-back capital city in Brazzaville, some decent beaches on its Atlantic coastline and the warm and welcoming Congolese culture” as its evidence.

Amnesty International’s page on Congo lists repression of dissidents, lack of press freedom, “harsh and inhumane” prison conditions, and widespread discrimination against the Pigmy ethnic minority as human rights concerns in the country. The World Bank found in its 2017 assessment that two-thirds of students who graduate primary school lack basic literacy and mathematical skills and nearly half the nation’s residents live below the poverty line.

Cuba, a nation drowning in garbage where unarmed mothers are beaten and arrested for going to church, you can find a “sexual Disneyland” where, “thankfully,” the Cuban government turns a blind eye to rampant sex trafficking.

Venezuela, where Marxism has forced people to actually eat the garbage laying around everywhere, was a “paradise for $20” in 2015, according to a Reuters headline quoting tourists at the time. “People should come. It’s so cheap, it’s ridiculous,” one tourist is featured as urging in the piece.

Do not be deceived by the earlier date on that piece – In 2015, Venezuela’s maternity wards were already killing infants with vermin infestations and McDonald’s was charging $133 for an order of fries.

Zimbabwe, a tyranny under leftist nonagenarian Robert Mugabe – and now spring chicken Emmerson Mnangagwa, 75 – for decades, isn’t a tragedy, but a profitable investment opportunity. “For companies willing to take on some risks, now is the time to buy local assets, which, though priced in USD [U.S. dollars], are still fairly cheap because of the associated risk,” the Harvard Business Review suggested last week, despite Mnangagwa exhibiting the same signs of authoritarianism as his predecessor and the nation’s impoverished growing impatient.

Silence is complicit in the propaganda of the oppression of these “shitholes.” Silence is necessary to keep the pockets of everyone from Carnival Cruises to the New York Times to the tourism arms of the regimes that welcome them.

President Trump’s alleged “crudening” of the language to describe these places from which so many flee serves as an opportunity to deny those who profit from masking reality the ability to do so.

President Trump is, of course, not the prime vehicle for the message that truth sets nations free in this particular case. His sons have publicly showcased vacations in Zimbabwe, very likely profiting longtime tyrant Robert Mugabe with their presence. Though, conversely, it is worth noting that Trump himself has, on multiple occasions, written about his refusal to build real estate commodities in Cuba citing human rights concerns. And then there’s the fact that the reporting surrounding Trump’s comments during the meeting in question is so convoluted and weaponized that it is difficult to even understand what argument he was trying to make by using the word.

Dismissing places where human rights abuses, hunger, and disease are rampant as “shitholes” without offering a viable alternative for running their governments is unproductive. But silencing anyone who dares speak the truth about these places – and what that says about their ruling ideologies – is even worse.

Voir aussi:

« Pays de merde » : les mille et une manières de traduire les « Shithole countries » de Trump

LCI
TRADUCTION – L’expression « pays de merde » que Donald Trump aurait prononcée alors qu’il abordait le thème de l’immigration venant de pays d’Afrique, du Salvador ou d’Haïti n’est pas traduite de manière équivalente par nos voisins. Certains sont plus poétiques que d’autres.

« Shithole countries » : l’expression grossière utilisée par Donald Trump  suscite un tollé mondial depuis vendredi. Mais comment est elle traduite ?  Incontestablement vulgaire, le terme « shithole » a nécessité quelques trésors d’imagination aux médias du monde entier pour exprimer de manière fidèle la réalité d e la grossièreté de Trump sans trop choquer le public. Car Shithole se réfère aux  latrines extérieures pour  désigner un endroit particulièrement repoussant.

En français, de nombreux médias, dont l’AFP ou LCI, ont retenu la formule très crue de « pays de merde », proche du sens littéral et conforme au style souvent  sans fioritures de Donald Trump. Des dictionnaires bilingues comme le Harrap’s suggèrent toutefois des  alternatives moins grossières, comme « porcherie », « taudis » ou « trou paumé ».

« Pays de chiottes » pour les Grecs, « endroit où les loups copulent » pour les Serbes

 La presse espagnole est à l’unisson de la française avec « paises de  mierda », des médias grecs introduisant quant à eux une nuance : « pays de  chiottes ».   Aux Pays-Bas, le grand quotidien Volkskrant et une bonne partie de la  presse néerlandophone esquivent la vulgarité en utilisant le terme  « achterlijke », ou « arriéré ». En Russie Ria Novosti parle de « trou sale », mais Troud (journal syndical)  va plus loin avec « trou à merde ». En Italie, le Corriere della Sera avance « merdier » (merdaio), et l’agence  tchèque CTK choisit de son côté de parler de « cul du monde ».

Les médias allemands optent souvent pour l’expression « Dreckslöcher », qui  peut se traduire par « trous à rats ». L’allégorie animalière est aussi de mise  dans la presse serbe, avec l’expression « vukojebina », à savoir « l’endroit où  les loups copulent ».

« Pays où les oiseaux ne pondent pas d’oeufs »

En Asie les médias semblent davantage à la peine pour trouver le mot juste  en langue locale, tout en évitant parfois de choquer.  Au Japon, la chaîne NHK a choisi de parler de « pays crasseux », l’agence  Jiji utilisant un terme familier mais pas forcément injurieux pouvant de  traduire par « pays ressemblant à des toilettes ».

Les médias chinois se contentent en général de parler de « mauvais pays »,  évitant de reproduire l’expression originale dans sa grossièreté. La version la plus allusive et la plus imagée revient sans conteste à  l’agence taïwanaise CNA, qui évoque des « pays où les oiseaux ne pondent pas  d’oeufs ».

Voir encore:

WATCH: A history of presidential potty mouths

« I have interviewed six presidents of the United States. I have traveled with them. I have been in their homes. They’ve been in my home on multiple occasions. I have flown on Air Force One with them and commercial jets and private jets and car caravans and Winnebagos. Went to Disney World with one. They all have used the ‘S-word.’ Even that old gentleman, Ronald Reagan, would sometimes occasionally, rarely use the ‘F-word.’ So, the White house is going to endure, » conservative author Doug Wead said.

Let’s take a look at some presidential profanity throughout history.

Sometimes choice words were reserved for the political opponents. President Reagan famously referred to enemies a few times as “SOBs.” While former President Obama once called Mitt Romney a « bullshitter » in a “Rolling Stone” interview.

One of the more profane presidents in recent history was Richard Nixon. Nixon was caught on White House tapes using numerous vulgarities, including some offensive terms about gay people.

Likewise, President Johnson was accused of often using the “N-word” when talking about African-Americans.

Some of these remarks were caught on video.

In 2000, George W. Bush was caught on a hot mic during a campaign rally calling Adam Clymer, a reporter with The New York Times, a « major league asshole. »

In fact, both the younger Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, are quoted in Mark Updegrove’s book, “The Last Republicans,” as dropping the “F-bomb.”

George W. Bush even had this to say about two former colleagues.

« [Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] never made one f—-ing decision. »

Even the silver-tongued President Clinton had his moments. In 2008, Clinton forgot to hang up a phone call with reporter Susan Phillips before saying he wouldn’t take any « shit » from Obama, then a candidate.

Voir par ailleurs:

Immigration : Macron, ce faux dur

La gauche angélique et irresponsable fait faussement passer Emmanuel Macron pour un opposant déterminé à l’immigration de peuplement. Ce lundi, le secrétaire général de la CGT, Philippe Martinez, a de nouveau jugé « scandaleux » le « tri » voulu selon lui par le gouvernement entre les « bons » et les « mauvais » migrants. ‘L’histoire de notre pays et le devoir de notre pays c’est d’accueillir des gens qui sont dans la souffrance, les accueillir tous, tous », a déclaré Martinez sur France Inter. Jeudi, sur RTL, l’ancien candidat à la présidentielle, Benoit Hamon, avait déjà asséné : ‘Le tri des migrants, c’est le tri des pauvres ». Dimanche, sur BFMTV, le socialiste Julien Dray a comparé le recensement des migrants dans les centres d’hébergement d’urgence – opérations diligentées par des fonctionnaires et annoncées 48 h à l’avance – à des « rafles », assimilables à celle du Vel d’Hiv organisée en France occupée (1942) contre les juifs étrangers ou apatrides : une outrance inaugurée par L’Obs qui, sur sa une de jeudi, représente le visage de Macron entouré de barbelés. Déjà en 2015, le prix Nobel de littérature Jean-Marie Le Clézio, un des témoins cités dans le dossier de L’Obs, déclarait à l’hebdomadaire argentin Revista N : « Nous devrions éliminer les frontières pour laisser les gens circuler (…) Les restrictions de l’espace Schengen sont une honte. On ferme l’Europe à l’Afrique, l’Orient, l’Amérique latine, on se referme sur nous ».

Cet étalement de bons sentiments en dit long sur l’aveuglement face au raidissement de l’opinion. Partout en Europe, et singulièrement en France, les gens rejettent majoritairement une immigration qui ne s’assimile plus et qui porte en elle un nouvel antisémitisme. Reste que Macron n’est pas l’homme à poigne que croient voir les inconditionnels de l’accueil pour tous. Son soutien à la politique d’Angela Merkel, qui a fait entrer en Allemagne plus d’un million de « migrants » musulmans en 2015, ajouté à son mépris des « populistes » qui réclament le retour aux frontières, ne font pas du président un obstacle sérieux à l’idéologie immigrationniste. Tandis que les pays d’Europe de l’Est, qui ont déjà sauvé l’Europe de l’envahisseur ottoman en 1683, sonnent une nouvelle fois l’alarme sur une histoire qui se répète, Macron joint sa voix à celle de l’Union européenne pour accabler la Pologne ou la Hongrie. Le député Guy Verhofstadt a récemment sermonné ces deux nations : « Il n’y a pas de place pour des pays qui rejettent nos valeurs. Toute référence à l’identité nationale est potentiellement fanatique ». Pour sa part, le commissaire européen aux migrations, Dimitris Avramopoulos, a admis (Le Figaro, vendredi), parlant d’ »impératif moral » mais aussi d’impératif « économique et social » : « Il est temps de regarder en face la vérité. Nous ne pourrons pas arrêter la migration ». Macron l’européen demeure, jusqu’à présent, dans cette logique de l’ouverture et du remplacement.

Voir encore:

Black Protest Has Lost Its Power
Have whites finally found the courage to judge African-Americans fairly by universal standards?
Shelby Steele
WSJ
Jan. 12, 2018

The recent protests by black players in the National Football League were rather sad for their fruitlessness. They may point to the end of an era for black America, and for the country generally—an era in which protest has been the primary means of black advancement in American life.

There was a forced and unconvincing solemnity on the faces of these players as they refused to stand for the national anthem. They seemed more dutiful than passionate, as if they were mimicking the courage of earlier black athletes who had protested: Tommie Smith and John Carlos, fists in the air at the 1968 Olympics; Muhammad Ali, fearlessly raging against the Vietnam War; Jackie Robinson, defiantly running the bases in the face of racist taunts. The NFL protesters seemed to hope for a little ennoblement by association.

And protest has long been an ennobling tradition in black American life. From the Montgomery bus boycott to the march on Selma, from lunch-counter sit-ins and Freedom Rides to the 1963 March on Washington, only protest could open the way to freedom and the acknowledgment of full humanity. So it was a high calling in black life. It required great sacrifice and entailed great risk. Martin Luther King Jr. , the archetypal black protester, made his sacrifices, ennobled all of America, and was then shot dead.

For the NFL players there was no real sacrifice, no risk and no achievement. Still, in black America there remains a great reverence for protest. Through protest—especially in the 1950s and ’60s—we, as a people, touched greatness. Protest, not immigration, was our way into the American Dream. Freedom in this country had always been relative to race, and it was black protest that made freedom an absolute.

It is not surprising, then, that these black football players would don the mantle of protest. The surprise was that it didn’t work. They had misread the historic moment. They were not speaking truth to power. Rather, they were figures of pathos, mindlessly loyal to a black identity that had run its course.

What they missed is a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless. We blacks are, today, a free people. It is as if freedom sneaked up and caught us by surprise.

Of course this does not mean there is no racism left in American life. Racism is endemic to the human condition, just as stupidity is. We will always have to be on guard against it. But now it is recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history.

Protest always tries to make a point. But what happens when that point already has been made — when, in this case, racism has become anathema and freedom has expanded?

What happened was that black America was confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom. This is what replaced racism as our primary difficulty. Blacks had survived every form of human debasement with ingenuity, self-reliance, a deep and ironic humor, a capacity for self-reinvention and a heroic fortitude. But we had no experience of wide-open freedom.

Watch out that you get what you ask for, the saying goes. Freedom came to blacks with an overlay of cruelty because it meant we had to look at ourselves without the excuse of oppression. Four centuries of dehumanization had left us underdeveloped in many ways, and within the world’s most highly developed society. When freedom expanded, we became more accountable for that underdevelopment. So freedom put blacks at risk of being judged inferior, the very libel that had always been used against us.

To hear, for example, that more than 4,000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016 embarrasses us because this level of largely black-on-black crime cannot be blamed simply on white racism.

We can say that past oppression left us unprepared for freedom. This is certainly true. But it is no consolation. Freedom is just freedom. It is a condition, not an agent of change. It does not develop or uplift those who win it. Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past. The tragedy in Chicago—rightly or wrongly—reflects on black America.

That’s why, in the face of freedom’s unsparing judgmentalism, we reflexively claim that freedom is a lie. We conjure elaborate narratives that give white racism new life in the present: “systemic” and “structural” racism, racist “microaggressions,” “white privilege,” and so on. All these narratives insist that blacks are still victims of racism, and that freedom’s accountability is an injustice.

We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you “truly black.” Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question.

The NFL protests were not really about injustice. Instead such protests are usually genuflections to today’s victim-focused black identity. Protest is the action arm of this identity. It is not seeking a new and better world; it merely wants documentation that the old racist world still exists. It wants an excuse.

For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present. This is the expectation behind the NFL protests and the many protests of groups like Black Lives Matter. The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive. To a degree, black America’s self-esteem is invested in the illusion that we live under a cloud of continuing injustice.

When you don’t know how to go forward, you never just sit there; you go backward into what you know, into what is familiar and comfortable and, most of all, exonerating. You rebuild in your own mind the oppression that is fading from the world. And you feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation.

But the NFL protests may be a harbinger of change. They elicited considerable resentment. There have been counterprotests. TV viewership has gone down. Ticket sales have dropped. What is remarkable about this response is that it may foretell a new fearlessness in white America—a new willingness in whites (and blacks outside the victim-focused identity) to say to blacks what they really think and feel, to judge blacks fairly by standards that are universal.

We blacks have lived in a bubble since the 1960s because whites have been deferential for fear of being seen as racist. The NFL protests reveal the fundamental obsolescence—for both blacks and whites—of a victim-focused approach to racial inequality. It causes whites to retreat into deference and blacks to become nothing more than victims. It makes engaging as human beings and as citizens impermissible, a betrayal of the sacred group identity. Black victimization is not much with us any more as a reality, but it remains all too powerful as a hegemony.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).

Voir enfin:

Trump Is a Racist. Period.
Charles M. Blow
The NYT
Jan. 14, 2018

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged others.

Understanding this, it is not a stretch to understand that Donald Trump’s words and deeds over the course of his life have demonstrated a pattern of expressing racial prejudices that demean people who are black and brown and that play to the racial hostilities of other white people.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot.

Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it.

I know of no point during his entire life where he has apologized for, repented of, or sought absolution for any of his racist actions or comments.

Instead, he either denies, deflects or amps up the attack.

Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed.

“Racism” and “racist” are simply words that have definitions, and Trump comfortably and unambiguously meets those definitions.

We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism, to the point where the only people to whom the appellation can be safely applied are the vocal, violent racial archetypes.

Racism doesn’t require hatred, constant expression, or even conscious awareness. We want racism to be fringe rather than foundational. But, wishing isn’t an effective method of eradication.

We have to face this thing, stare it down and fight it back.

The simple acknowledgment that Trump is a racist is the easy part. The harder, more substantive part is this: What are we going to do about it?

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

First and foremost, although Trump is not the first president to be a racist, we must make him the last. If by some miracle he should serve out his first term, he mustn’t be allowed a second. Voters of good conscience must swarm the polls in 2020.

But before that, those voters must do so later this year, to rid the House and the Senate of as many of Trump’s defenders, apologists and accomplices as possible. Should the time come where impeachment is inevitable, there must be enough votes in the House and Senate to ensure it.

We have to stop thinking that we can somehow separate what racists believe from how they will behave. We must stop believing that any of Trump’s actions are clear of the venom coursing through his convictions. Everything he does is an articulation of who he is and what he believes. Therefore, all policies he supports, positions he takes and appointments he makes are suspect.

And finally, we have to stop giving a pass to the people — whether elected official or average voter — who support and defend his racism. If you defend racism you are part of the racism. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you’re an egalitarian, how much you say that you are race blind, how much you say that you are only interested in people’s policies and not their racist polemics.

As the brilliant James Baldwin once put it: “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” When I see that in poll after poll a portion of Trump’s base continues to support his behavior, including on race, I can only conclude that there is no real daylight between Trump and his base. They are part of his racism.

When I see the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda, I see that there is no real daylight between Trump and them either. They too are part of his racism.

When you see it this way, you understand the enormity and the profundity of what we are facing. There were enough Americans who were willing to accept Trump’s racism to elect him. There are enough people in Washington willing to accept Trump’s racism to defend him. Not only is Trump racist, the entire architecture of his support is suffused with that racism. Racism is a fundamental component of the Trump presidency.

3 Responses to Diplomatie: Vous avez dit pays de merde ? (It’s not shit holes, it’s shit shows, stupid !)

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    WHAT SHITHOLES ?

    Whether it’s because of warlords or poor infrastructure, water is a basic need. Any place that doesn’t have it readily available is going to be a diseased shi*hole. Obviously, the people suffering in these shi*holes are not to be disparaged or trod upon. On the contrary, I support exporting our technology and philosophy of freedom and prosperity to every corner of the earth. I also support missions to help relieve the suffering of people born in shi*holes. But let’s not pretend there aren’t shi*holes, or allow Democrats to turn this whole country into a shi*hole no one wants to live in.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/top-10-shiholes-never-want-visit/

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    WHAT PROFANITY ?

    In the contest for Most Offended News Network after President Trump reportedly referred to African nations as “s***hole” countries, CNN wins hands down. NewsBusters staff combed through CNN transcripts on Nexis for the S-hole word in the 24 hours of January 12 – the first full day after The Washington Post reported the controversy – and found CNN staffers and CNN guests uncorked the profanity 195 times in one day. That doesn’t count Saturday, Sunday or Monday. They could be headed for 1,000 by now. It also doesn’t count the amount of time they put the S-word on screen (sometimes twice, as you can see on Cuomo’s temporary prime time show.) …

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/01/15/cnn-leaps-toilet-network-aired-195-uses-shole-friday

    J'aime

  3. jcdurbant dit :

    WHAT SHITHOLE COUNTRIES ? (Guess which country the WAPO just described as most violent, with weak law enforcement, a flimsy judicial system, an anemic asylum process and predatory criminal gangs ?)

    In 2002, the United States and Canada secured a similar arrangement, known as a “safe third country” agreement. It has worked because Canada is, in fact, a safe third country: Migrants who apply for asylum there are secure, and their cases are fairly adjudicated. By contrast, Mexico is patently unsuitable as a place of refuge for most migrants, especially those from Central America, who suffer exploitation, violence and sexual assault almost routinely as they make their way north. In a recent report, Doctors Without Borders noted that two-thirds of Guatemalan, Salvadoran and Honduran migrants in Mexico have reported being victims of violence; almost a third of migrant women there had been sexually assaulted. Twelve of the world’s 50 most violent cities are in Mexico. Forcing refugees to seek sanctuary in Mexico would thrust tens of thousands of them into a country with weak law enforcement, a flimsy judicial system, an anemic asylum process and predatory criminal gangs. (…) This is not an argument for open borders. Rather, the right response, and the one most likely to succeed in the long term, is for the United States to redouble efforts to strengthen governments and fight the lawlessness that has seized Central America’s refugee-producing countries. Short of that, the administration’s efforts will be self-defeating.

    The WAPO

    We can’t outsource America’s asylum system
    Washington Post
    July 20 2018

    THE CRISIS involving migrants fleeing violence in Central America, seeking sanctuary in the United States and overwhelming American immigration courts is real. The Obama administration was flummoxed by it when the numbers of women and unaccompanied children crossing the border spiked in 2014 . The Trump administration, predisposed against immigrants of almost any kind, has responded to it by means of outright cruelty, splitting up families to deter migration , shattering the lives of children and parents in the process.

    That outrage doesn’t diminish the urgency of dealing with the waves of Central Americans flooding northward. What would constitute a reasonable, humane and legal response?

    One option examined by the Obama administration, and now being pursued more actively by the Trump administration, is to push the problem to Mexico. The idea is to strike a bilateral deal requiring migrants to seek protection by applying for asylum there rather than here. In theory, it makes some sense; Europe pursued a similar deal with Turkey in 2016, at a cost exceeding $6 billion, to stanch the flow of refugees from Syria. In practice, it is a terrible idea that would subject migrants from Central America and elsewhere to further violence and danger, and probably do little to curb illegal immigration to the United States.

    In 2002, the United States and Canada secured a similar arrangement, known as a “safe third country” agreement. It has worked because Canada is, in fact, a safe third country: Migrants who apply for asylum there are secure, and their cases are fairly adjudicated.

    By contrast, Mexico is patently unsuitable as a place of refuge for most migrants, especially those from Central America, who suffer exploitation, violence and sexual assault almost routinely as they make their way north. In a recent report, Doctors Without Borders noted that two-thirds of Guatemalan, Salvadoran and Honduran migrants in Mexico have reported being victims of violence; almost a third of migrant women there had been sexually assaulted. Twelve of the world’s 50 most violent cities are in Mexico. Forcing refugees to seek sanctuary in Mexico would thrust tens of thousands of them into a country with weak law enforcement, a flimsy judicial system, an anemic asylum process and predatory criminal gangs.

    Under those circumstances, it is folly to think migrants would stay put. Much more likely, they would simply find a way to enter the United States illegally, even without the chance to apply for asylum here.

    Administration officials may hope to exert leverage to induce Mexico to accept such a deal, perhaps in return for a break on tariffs or the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which President Trump has threatened to curtail. They may seek to exploit President Enrique Peña Nieto’s current lame-duck period, before his elected successor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, takes office Dec. 1.

    That doesn’t change Mexico’s on-the-ground reality.

    This is not an argument for open borders. Rather, the right response, and the one most likely to succeed in the long term, is for the United States to redouble efforts to strengthen governments and fight the lawlessness that has seized Central America’s refugee-producing countries. Short of that, the administration’s efforts will be self-defeating.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-cant-outsource-americas-asylum-system/2018/07/20/f87c1000-8b73-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

    J'aime

Répondre

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :