Now that the Olympics have finally come to a close, I just wanted to go back to the event that generated the most comments from a U.S.-France relationship’s perspective.

Alright, we all know that sports events, and the Olympics in particular, are often the place where some of the worst nationalistic sentiments often take over the more noble purposes they are supposed to serve. Granted, there are certainly many more important questions in this troubled world than the Olympics, but I – and apparently I am not alone – can’t resist it (to my credit, I am a genuine sports fan who follow sports not just every four years.)

In matter of sports, France and the U.S. are rarely competing. A few tennis confrontations here and there, an Olympics basketball final in 2000 in Sidney, but that’s about it (maybe I forgot something, but really nothing comes to mind right now…). At least, nothing to really unleash the over-enthusiast and often blindly passionate and nationalistic supporters of either country.

Interestingly though, and to keep with this blog’s raison d’être, this year’s Olympics offered the opportunity for a few (a lot?) French-bashers to express all their, huh…, feelings.

Nothing unusual among sports fans of course, as they have a tendency to get a bit over their heads, but somewhat more surprising (although?) was the fact that a lot of it came from the mainstream media.

So for those who missed the whole episode, France and the U.S. were competing for the gold in 4×100-meter swimming relay.

Usually, not that many people care about swimming, but this year, the Olympics’ U.S. coverage was (somewhat understandably) all about Phelps and his quest for 8 gold medals. NBC had even succeeded to shift all the swimming finals in Beijing in the morning so that they could cover it live and in prime time in the U.S. With close to $1bn spent to acquire the Games’ rights, NBC obviously had some influence over the IOC…

A little opportunistically, NBC and the U.S. team announced the French team as the huge favorite. More objectively though, 3 teams were in fact competing for the gold – France, the U.S. and Australia – and the U.S. relay team had just broken the world record in the semi-finals. This race was also thought to be one of the only possibilities for Phelps to fail in his quest.

Broadcast on Friday night in prime time, that was a nice setup for a nice race…

Add the fact that France and the U.S. were swimming side by side and you had a script for quite a drama.

To spice it up even more, Alain Bernard, the leader of the French squad, was reported to have trash talked before the race, announcing:

“The Americans? We gonna smash them. That’s what we came here for. If the relay goes according to plans, then we’ll be on a roll.”

The NBC commentators were all about this comment before the race and repeated it frequently.

To say the least, the race lived up to expectations. Five teams finished under the previous world record. The Australians first took the lead with their fastest swimmer (who established a new 100m WR on this occasion), the U.S. then took over and finally the French team, just before the last leg, led by Alain Bernard. With a half second advantage at the onset of the last relay, France and its leader seemed unstoppable (the U.S. commentator even announced they had lost, upsetting a lot of people). That was without counting Jason Lezak, the last American swimmer who swam the fastest 100m of his life and of all time (even if it’s not considered a WR as only the lead-off legs are eligible for records in relays).

Whoa, what a race! A big disappointment obviously in the French squad and a tremendous burst of joy and triumph for the U.S. team and the commentators.

As expected, they didn’t let go with the boasting French comments. That was one of the first question they asked to the American team after the race: “So, who’s talking now?“ “We are. United States of America.” replied Weber-Gale, one of the American swimmers.

Most of the media articles that followed could not help but razz the French with enthusiasm. Nothing that surprising at this point (after all, it was well deserved, wasn’t it?). But this whole story was good French-bashing material and we didn’t have to wait very long to get the “arrogant country” comments.

Even the mostly usually reserved Washington Post got into it (humm, Tracee Hamilton again…):

“Roll? Make that a croissant to go, Monsieur Trash-talk.
Hard to say which was more fun, seeing the U.S. 4×100-meter relay team win in such dramatic fashion or seeing the French team lose in such dramatic fashion.”

In this expected flow of reactions, I found a couple of gems from someone by the name of Chris Chase, who writes “articles” for the Yahoo sport blog.

First, in his comment about the relay, soberly titled “Did the French choke?” After mentioning – how gracious - the fair-play attitude of Bernard after the race, he couldn’t help concluding with this nice little piece of French-bashing:

“To his credit, Bernard was gracious in defeat, clapping when the Americans received their gold medals and shaking the hand of Michael Phelps after the ceremony. Or maybe that was just his way of surrendering. The French are pretty good at that one too.”

Obviously happy to see the French team beaten, that may have slipped from his mouth. But a couple of days later, he had to comment on Alain Bernard’s success in the individual 100m. Obviously, the Frenchman’s victory ridiculed his “choke” comment (objectively, Bernard’s swim was far from a choke: his leg was the 3rd fastest in history) and he titled his post “The Frenchman doesn’t choke twice.” Classier? Not really. Again, he had to conclude with that:

“The gold provides some redemption for France’s sprinting star, but it won’t erase the memory of the loss to Lezak. No matter how many more medals he wins, Bernard will always be known for that relay collapse.”

To say the least, this Chris Chase seems to have something against Bernard. Well, I’d suggest he reads the French papers to see how Bernard will be remembered…(I guess the Legion d’Honneur is coming…).

But beyond these pity comments, what was interesting is the large coverage that the whole story got and the wave of reactions and over-reactions that followed the race. Posts on various sports blog such as Yahoo, the NY Times and others were among the most commented, largely to express anti-French sentiment (only posts about controversies in gymnastics - possibly underage Chinese gymnasts, jury bias, drew more comments…). As the NY Times put it: it “stirred so many Americans’ wrath, beyond their usual resentment of the French”.

But…

It’s interesting to note that Bernard’s comment was almost never mentioned in the French media (to my knowledge not a single time before the race, and only buried in one Le Monde article afterwards).

How come the French press never mentioned Bernard’s comment? He was one of the French squad’s big stars coming into these Olympics, one of the only French world’s record holders along with Laure Manaudou. Several articles in the American media mentioned that the statement was made at a news conference prior to the start of the Games… but again, no hint of it in the French press!

Could it be possible that Bernard never actually said the now-famous statement about “smashing the Americans”? Or at least not in these words?

A few points:

- First of all, Bernard’s attitude - be it after the relay loss, his victory in the 100m or his defeat in the 50m – was always fair-play and to all observers gracious. He even took his Brazilian counterpart, who just happened to win the 50m in front of him, in his arms. Of course, he could be a gracious trash-talker. But I haven’t found anywhere else than in this famous “smash” statement the arrogance that it implies.

- Secondly, and I find this quite telling, the supposed statement was echoing the exact same words that Gary Hall Jr., a U.S. sprinter, used at the Olympics in Sidney 8 years ago before losing to Ian Thorpe’s team:

“We’re going to smash the Australians like guitars” said Gary Hall before the race.

- Thirdly, U.S. journalists tracked down Bernard just after the race to interview him. Here is his answer, which seems to imply that the statement is genuine. However, it is striking how much Bernard struggles in English. As a bilingual speaker myself, I find it hard to believe that he would have used such idiomatic English as “smash [the Americans],” even more so with words sounding exactly like the words of Gary Hall 8 years ago. Do you know a lot of 20-year old Frenchies who, having never lived in English-speaking countries, are able to lay down this kind of English:

“The Americans? We gonna smash them. That’s what we came here for. If the relay goes according to plans, then we’ll be on a roll.”

- To my knowledge, there is no audio of Bernard’s words

To add to the confusion, articles from the New York Times or the Washington Post indicate that Frederic Bousquet, not Bernard, made the statement:

“Before the 4×100 freestyle relay final on Monday, Fred Bousquet of France talked trash about the Americans.”

“The French had never won a medal in this event, but came in as the top seed — and even talked some trash beforehand, with one swimmer, Frédérick Bousquet, suggesting that the Americans feared them.”

Finally, Phelps has often spoken about how he uses his opponents’ talk as a motivational tool. His coach, Bowman, is also reported as being the one who told the U.S. team about the Frenchman’s trash talk. Later in the Olympics, another of Phelps’s main competitor, Cavic from Serbia, was widely reported to have said that it would be good for swimming if Phelps was thwarted in his bid for eight gold medals. Again, Bowman played the quote card to motive Phelps a little more. So could the Bernard’s comment be just a distorted rumor amplified or spread by the Phelps coach to motivate his team? Could it have been completely made up?

So what to think of all that?

We may never know for sure what was actually said and what was just the result of the distorting prism of media and rumors. What is certain is that the U.S. media and a lot of French bashers seem to be just ready to seize any opportunity to spread their French phobic rhetoric.

Interestingly, smack talking in US sports is actually quite common (I would go as far as saying that Americans pretty much invented it ;-). In baseball, football and basketball, it is common knowledge that many athletes use and abuse it. Michael Jordan, for one, was a notorious trash talker. Even if this is mostly not supported, it is often considered part of the psychological game to try to get to your opponent’s mind. It’s even more relevant in duel sports like boxing (remember Mohamed Ali?) or in short and adrenaline-saturated events like sprints (remember Maurice Green?). Even in the muffled world of women pole vault, this Olympics demonstrates that trash talk is everywhere! For some reason though, it didn’t receive as much echo…

Such a buzz around Bernard’s “quote” was probably just the magnifying French-lens effect. It seems that everything done or said by France or the French people will simply receive extra-attention and reactions, particularly when it is material for controversy. The jump by the U.S.’ mainstream media on what appears to be at the very least a non-verified quote, and at worst a made-up one, speaks volumes about them, as well as about the spreading of French-bashing.

As the speech begins, African Twitter users are having fun translating Obama's trademark phrase, “Yes We Can” into different African languages. From Kenya, afromusing starts the trend with Swahili:

dnashong, originally from Ghana, shares more ways to say we can:

kaysha remarks upon Africa's need for a figure like Obama:

dnashong responds:

He then corrects himself to say “you know I should've said Africa's new leaders. I mean US!”

Malagasy lrakoto admits his excitement for Obama's reactions:

Although it goes without saying that non-U.S. citizens have a number of reasons for their interest in the U.S. elections, Trinidadian nplaughlin puts it best when he says:

Bahraini amiraalhussaini quips:

Finally, Nigerian kuikihoro seems disappointed that Obama's speech ended so quickly:

The Big Tent is ordinarily a parking lot, but now has an enormous two-story tent erected on it. The panel I spoke on was upstairs from the bloggers. The panels are back to back. Mine was organized by the Better World Campaign of the UN Foundation, and was primarily about a new poll they have published that says Americans care about foreign policy. The fact that this would be news, is sort of astonishing to me. But there is some scientific method to help establish the fact that this has changed in the past year. I always wonder whether people just respond according to what they happened to see on the news the night before.

I spoke about the work my colleagues Amira, John, Jillian and many others from Global Voices are doing on Voices without Votes, a website sponsored by Reuters where we are tracking non-American responses to the US presidential election and foreign policy. I personally, think Americans tend to focus too much on what foreign policy means for themselves (and how people perceive them), and not enough on what it means for citizens in other countries. The questions I got during the panel reinforced my sense of this.

Let me paraphrase: Do non-American bloggers say that America doesn't accomplish it's foreign policy goals? What do bloggers in the Middle East say about American women?

In other words, what does the rest of the world think about America. Well, I don't know. I think most of the time they too, are thinking more about themselves, and interpreting world events according to what makes sense in their own hemispheres and blogospheres. Please visit Voices without Votes to see the many, many different things bloggers around the world are saying. Unlike pollsters, we don't pretend to speak on behalf of entire populations or the world - but we do hope to give a taste of what foreign opinion and reasoning looks like.

Hillary Clinton

The biggest deficit in our nation’s history. Money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis.

Brian Schweitzer

At the same time, billions of dollars that we spend on all that foreign oil seems to end up in the bank accounts of those around the world who are openly hostile to American values and our way of life.

This is pulled from the full text:

As we gather here tonight, our country is less secure and more isolated than at any time in recent history. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a very deep hole with very few friends to help us climb out. For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.
In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.

I’ve been on the ground in Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms: this Administration’s policy has been an abject failure. America cannot afford four more years of this.

I find that lots of politicians are talking about holding Russia accountable, but very few are able to articulate what that would mean.

“On a le droit de dire « je rêve de tuer Obama et voilà comment je m’y prendrais », mais tant qu’il n’y a pas le moindre commencement de mise en pratique, tout cela relève de la liberté d’expression”.

One is allowed to say “I dream of killing Obama and this is how I will do it” but until there are not concrete action initiated towards that goal, it all comes down to freedom of expression.

Guillemette Faure of rue89 is also amazed at how freely people of various opinions are expressing themselves at the convention and how tolerant the attendees are of people with different ideologies:

“Cette faculté de la société américaine à laisser s’exprimer les adversaires est toujours étonnante. On s’en fait encore une idée à l’extérieur de la convention où des groupes anti-avortement portent d’immenses photos de foetus sanguinolents et traitent Obama de » tueur de bébés » (parce qu’il défend le droit à l’avortement). Chacun passe devant eux sans leur dire quoi que ce soit…”

The ability of the American society to let their opponents express themselves is always amazing. One telling picture is the fact that outside the convention, anti-abortion groups carry large photos of bloody foetuses and call Obama a “baby-killer” (because he is pro-choice). Everyone walks by without saying a word..

François Clemenceau points out to a second wrinkle of these elections that is unique to the US. He wonders why traditionally red states (Kansas, West Virginia, Arkansas, Colorado, Caroline du Nord, Tennessee, Wyoming, Kentucky) have elected democrats as governors. He explains:

“Il semble juste que ces Etats du Sud et du Grand Ouest font la distinction entre des gouvernements de proximité, où l’on peut programmer des politiques assez centristes et de bon sens, et l’Etat fédéral à la tête duquel on cherche à placer quelqu’un qui « incarne » l’Amérique.”

“It seems that the Southern and Southwestern states make the distinction between local state governors, who can implement political strategies that are fairly moderate and based on common sense whereas for the country as a whole, they are looking for someone who embodies “America”.

The final characteristic that seems to have stood out to European bloggers at the convention is thirst for the melodramatic speeches and the hollywood-like atmosphere of a political meeting:

“Ce n’est pas de donner dans le mélo qui est critiquable, c’est l’ambivalence qui consiste à jouer Cendrillon sur la scène et Machiavel en coulisses. Les américains savent qu’on ne gouverne pas avec des bons sentiments. Ils veulent des hommes « strong ou tough » pour diriger leur pays.”

The melodramatic speeches are not to be condemned, it's the ambivalence of being Cinderella-like on the surface and then Machiavelli in the background. Americans know countries should not be governed by good sentiments. They want people who are “strong/ tough” to lead their country.

After President Clinton's endorsement of Obama, Guillemette Faure notes that 16 years earlier, Bill Clinton made his supporters at the convention repeat in unison “we can do it”, reminiscent of the ubiquitous “yes we can” Obama slogan.