Granderson: Eliminating national holidays is a promising idea. Start with the racist ones
Great news for French people, bad news for their pensions.
Because people are living longer, the math to fund pensions in France is no longer mathing, and now the country's debt is nearly 114% of its GDP. Remember it was just a couple of years ago when protesters set parts of Paris on fire because President Emmanuel Macron proposed raising the age of legal retirement from 62 to 64. Well, now Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has proposed eliminating two national holidays, in an attempt to address the country's debt.
Read more: Granderson: Where's the music that meets this moment? Black artists are stepping up
In 2023, before Paris was burning, roughly 50,000 people in Denmark gathered outside of Parliament to express their anger over ditching one of the country's national holidays. The roots of Great Prayer Day date all the way back to the 1600s. Eliminating it — with the hopes of increasing production and tax revenue — brought together the unions, opposing political parties and churches in a rare trifecta. That explains why a number of schools and businesses closed for the holiday in 2024 in defiance of the official change.
This week, Bayrou proposed eliminating France's Easter Monday and Victory Day holidays, the latter marking the defeat of Nazi Germany. In a Reuters poll, 70% of respondents didn't like the idea, so we'll see if Paris starts burning again. Or maybe citizens will take a cue from the Danes and just not work on those days, even if the government decides to continue business as usual.
Here at home, President Trump has also floated the idea of eliminating one of the national holidays. However, because he floated the idea on Juneteenth — via a social media post about 'too many non-working holidays' — I'm going to assume tax revenue wasn't the sole motivation for his comments that day. You know, given his crusade against corporate and government diversity efforts; his refusal to apologize for calling for the death penalty for five innocent boys of color; and his approval of Alligator Alcatraz. However, while I find myself at odds with the president's 2025 remarks about the holiday, I do agree with what he said about Juneteenth when he was president in 2020: 'It's actually an important event, an important time.'
Indeed.
While the institution of slavery enabled this country to quickly become a global power, studies show the largest economic gains in the history of the country came from slavery's ending — otherwise known as Juneteenth. Two economists have found that the economic payoff from freeing enslaved people was 'bigger than the introduction of railroads, by some estimates, and worth 7 to 60 years of technological innovation in the latter half of the 19th century,' according to the University of Chicago. Why? Because the final calculations revealed the cost to enslave people for centuries was far greater than the economic benefit of their freedom.
In 1492, when Christopher Columbus 'discovered America,' civilizations had been thriving on this land for millennia. The colonizers introduced slavery to these shores two years before the first 'Thanksgiving' in 1621. That was more than 50 years before King Louis XIV started France's first pension; 60 years before King Christian V approved Great Prayer Day; and 157 years before the 13 colonies declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776.
Of all the national holidays around the Western world, it would appear Juneteenth is among the most significant historically. Yet it gained federal recognition just four years ago, and it remains vulnerable. The transatlantic slave trade transformed the global economy, but the numbers show it was Juneteenth that lifted America to the top. Which tells you the president's hint at its elimination has little to do with our greatness and everything to do with the worldview of an elected official who was endorsed by the newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.
If it does get to the point where we — like France and Denmark — end up seriously considering cutting a holiday, my vote is for Thanksgiving. The retail industry treats it like a speed bump between Halloween and Christmas, and when history retells its origins, it's not a holiday worth protesting to keep.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
43 minutes ago
- American Military News
EU Budget Proposal Doubles Ukraine Aid And Boosts Military Spending
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. The European Commission has put forward its vision for the next long-term (2028-2034) European Union budget — a record-high 2-trillion-euro ($2.3 trillion) framework, with a doubling of funds for both Ukraine and EU foreign policy in general, and a fivefold increase in defense-related investment. It is worth remembering that the July 16 proposal is just the opening shot in a battle that will consume Brussels for the next two years. All 27 EU member states, which provide the vast majority of the cash through national contributions linked to their gross national income (GNI), must approve the proposal. But this is not likely to happen until what is expected to be marathon, last-minute negotiations in the latter half of 2027. So don't count on the budget remaining at 2 trillion euros by then — or on Ukraine, foreign policy, and enlargement policy getting as much financial support as the European Commission presented on July 16. Most of the net contributors — in other words, those who pay more into the common budget than they receive back — are mainly richer northern member states such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, and they aren't keen to increase the budget at all. The commission proposal is already a 600-billion-euro ($700 billion) jump compared to the 2021-2027 budget. And with several countries grappling with low growth, ballooning deficits, and budget cuts, the idea of the EU expanding its coffers right now could be useful ammunition for Euroskeptic parties railing against Brussels across the continent. To appease member states on this, the European Commission is proposing two things. First, new 'own resources' so that the budget isn't so dependent on member state contributions. Some of the new ideas include a tobacco tax and levies on large corporations. Few think this will succeed or have much impact. So instead, the second thing that the commission proposes is to send most of the cash back to member states in the shape of support for farmers, fishermen, and poorer regions of the bloc. This is already the biggest section of the budget at the moment — worth a total of 865 billion euro ($1 trillion) of the 2-trillion-euro proposal. It probably won't shrink. Interestingly, there is now a proposal to allocate 131 billion euro ($152 billion) for defense, which would be a fivefold increase compared to the current level. Several member states, notably Denmark and France, have indicated that the EU must become more of a military player, especially as the United States might dedicate fewer military resources to the continent in the coming years. If the proposal is not watered down, this would signal real intent on the issue. So, what about the foreign policy aspects of the commission's plan? It's all grouped under the heading 'A Stronger Europe in the World' and totals €200 billion ($233 billion). This is a doubling of the previous budget and contains everything from humanitarian aid, various foreign missions the bloc has — such as a monitoring mission in Armenia — to pre-accession funds for EU candidate countries in the Western Balkans and the bloc's eastern neighborhood. The money proposed for pre-accession is around 40 billion euros ($46 billion), an increase from before, but there is still no breakdown of how much cash each country will get. What is interesting, however, is that there is a revision clause in the proposal which means that the budget will be reworked if a country joins the club during the 2028-2034 period. After all, members tend to get more money than candidate countries. And given that nations like Albania, Montenegro, and possibly even Moldova could join within this time frame, they stand to gain even more. It is worth remembering here that Ukraine has been given a separate heading altogether. While Kyiv, of course, can benefit from the 200 billion euro of accession and humanitarian cash, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promised a dedicated 100-billion-euro ($116 billion) pot for the reconstruction of the war-torn country. Between 2024 and 2027, this so-called 'Ukraine facility' amounts to €50 billion ($58 billion) in loans and grants, financed through common EU borrowing, which all member states guarantee to repay. The question is whether a country like Hungary, which has been skeptical about all things Ukraine in recent years, will agree to this — especially as von der Leyen announced that rule of law conditionality applies to all the funds in the new budget. This conditionality existed to a certain degree in the previous budget and allowed Brussels to freeze billions heading to Budapest. Watering down conditionality in order to get more money for Ukraine already seems like one of the many compromises that will now have to be struck for this budget to eventually go through.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Jean-Pierre Azéma, 87, Dies; Chronicled French Collaboration With Nazis
Jean-Pierre Azéma, a historian who became a leading chronicler of France's dark days of wartime compromise, helping lead a generation's shift in attitude about that period though he himself was the son of a notorious collaborator with the Nazis, died on July 14 in Paris. He was 87. His death, in a hospice, was announced by the university where he taught for more than 35 years, the Institut d'Études Politiques, popularly known as Sciences Po. With a series of dispassionate, carefully researched books beginning in the 1970s, Mr. Azéma became part of a group of younger historians who helped destroy the postwar myths that France had comforted itself with: that the collaborationist wartime Vichy regime had done what it could to resist the occupying Germans and to protect the French, and that its leader, Marshal Philippe Pétain, was essentially benevolent. Mr. Azéma was having none of it. 'A phony regime' is what he called Pétain's government in his best-known work, 'De Munich à la Libération, 1938-1944' (1979, and translated in 1984 as 'From Munich to the Liberation'). He condemned the government for its 'sententious moralism and anti-democratic élitism' and its 'defensive and inward-looking nationalism.' Vichy was 'basically authoritarian,' Mr. Azéma wrote, a careful judgment not then universally accepted. He became known for picking apart Vichy's various factions — from the believers in Pétain's cult to the opportunists, and from those who believed in the marshal's project of a 'National Revolution' to those who were pro-Nazi. In France, Mr. Azéma's book outsold even the groundbreaking work of his friend the Columbia historian Robert O. Paxton, 'Vichy France,' which Mr. Azéma's mother, Claude Bertrand, had translated into French six years before and which was the first to set off the revisionist tide. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Inheritance tax plans tormenting farmers, union tells Starmer
The head of Wales' leading farming union has written to the prime minister urging him to make changes to inheritance tax proposals, which he said are leaving older farmers "tormented with continual worry". The UK government has announced plans, beginning in April 2026, to tax inherited agricultural assets worth more than £1m at a rate of 20% - half the usual rate. NFU Cymru President Aled Jones has called on Sir Keir Starmer to "mitigate very many of the human impacts" of the proposals, while also increasing government revenue. The UK government, which previously said its inheritance tax reforms were "vital", has been asked for comment on Mr Jones' appeal. How are the inheritance tax rules changing? Family farm 'turmoil' over inheritance tax - NFU Sleepless nights and anger as farmers protest Mr Jones said he felt "compelled" to write to the prime minister after being contacted by "hundreds of Welsh farming families" he said were impacted by the proposed changes. The UK government has said the changes will only affect the wealthiest 500 farms each year, but Mr Jones said he was concerned that the number of farms impacted "will be far greater than Treasury predictions". Farming unions have estimated that up to 70,000 farmers could be affected overall. Mr Jones said he was particularly concerned about the impact on older farmers, who are "tormented with the continual worry that their passing will create an unmanageable financial burden for their loved ones". "I know that no government would want to place anyone in the difficult and invidious position that many elderly farmers now find themselves in," the letter said. "My view remains that an opportunity still exists for your government to mitigate very many of the human impacts of these policy proposals, whilst meeting the government's aim of raising revenue." The UK government has maintained that, under its changes, three quarters of estates would continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter would pay half the inheritance tax that most people pay.
