« Long odds
After a not-insignificant amount of deliberation »

One last thing on bowgate

April 5th, 2009

It’s interesting to see some people in a tizzy over indulging in the ceremonies of our uneasy ally Saudi Arabia.  Anyone claiming that we American’s don’t bow down to anyone is ignorant of history:

Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone? Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that the President of the United States especially doesn’t bow down to anyone?

Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans fought a long and bloody war so we wouldn’t have to bow down to a king anymore?

Or at least ignorant of the recent John Adams miniseries, which dramatized the day when King George III received Adams as the first American minister to Britain in 1785:

On July 4, 1776, John Adams, delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts, voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the British King unfit to be ruler of a free people. The King had proclaimed the rebellious colonists to be traitors. Could Adams possibly have imagined that, after eight years of warfare, he would stand before that same King, as a respected diplomat on the world stage, presenting his credentials as the first United States Minister Plenipotentiary to Britain?

On June 1, 1785, King George formally received John Adams, representative of the fledgling nation that had dealt the British Empire a bitter defeat. The meeting, as Adams recounted in this official account, was marked by the pomp and ceremony required by the occasion of a royal audience. But beneath the pageantry, Adams described a strong undercurrent of emotion as the King and his former subject—who once reviled each other as bitter enemies—met face to face, as statesmen.

In a letter to Sec. State John Jay, Adams recounts going through the formalities in having an audience with the King:

picture-11

I went with his Lordership thro’ the Levee Room into the King’s Closet, the Door was shut and I was left with his Majesty and the Secretary of State alone.  I made the three Reverences, one at the Door, another about half way and the third before the Presence, according to the usage established at this and all the Northern Courts of Europe, and then addressed myself to his Majesty in the following words–

So perhaps this is all just kinda silly.  If not, here’s a video of Bush bowing, kissing, and receiving a medal from King Abdullah.  Big deal.  More importantly, John Adams had preternaturally outstanding handwriting.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.

  • orwellsghost
    Number 1. John Adams WAS NOT the President at the time, he was an Ambassador.

    Number 2, he did not give the deep bowing required by the Kings subjects, he did 3 half assed bows and said he could not bring himself to bow any deeper.

    So there you have it.
    John Adams did not feel comfortable bowing to the King and only did his impromptu bowing because he was an Ambassador, if we were President at the time I GUARANTEE you he would not have bowed.
  • aboctok
    "So there you have it"?
    " half-assed bows"? Really??

    There we have what? Let's not kid ourselves into deriving historical fact from IMAGINING a complex event of a different era to whatever convenient extent of accuracy that pleases us—eg, to start guaranteeing this or that! Arguments over whether presidents of the 18th Century would have or wouldn't have bowed to kings are pointless, because the act of bowing cannot easily and conveniently be interpreted separate to its social and political context!

    It's always tempting to draw limitless conclusions from analysis of history, but keep it sensible. Instead of thinking, with our imaginations in free-fall that, gee, because he was American, there was no way he was going to bow to anyone, just read what HE himself wrote of the encounter! He made the required "reverences"—yes, required by fact of diplomatic protocol!—and then, we can only suppose, moved on from there! Why try to make a big deal over the details of formal niceties of a completely different social era, and attempt to derive some hints of national status?? It's all IRRELEVANT! By the way, you might want to look up the meaning of "impromptu". Do you really believe that anything he did in that room was impromptu?? By his own admission, he memorised his speech!!
  • orwellsghost
    Impromptu= 2. Suddenly or hastily prepared, made, etc.: an impromptu dinner.

    John Adams got an impromptu course on how to curtsy to a King, his speech is an entirely different subject. The author here uses the miniseries of John Adams to make a point, well in that miniseries, which I own, you will see he got a crash course on bowing. He wasnt getting it right and he thought the whole thing was stupid.

    If the Emperor of Japan has no power over government, then why is it "required reverence"?
    Why did Obama bow so deeply to him with his eyes fixed on the ground?

    In Japan Obamas version is known as the formal bow, so why was a formal bow to the Emperor of Japan necessary when he is not even the head of government?

    PS Bowing is not diplomatic protocol, it is the exact opposite when it comes to the President. When Adams did his bowing he wasnt President.

    "American presidents do not bow before foreign dignitaries, whether they are princes, kings, or emperors."

    Period.
  • "Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"

    And besides, it's ridiculous. Bush did the same thing. Obama just did the same thing again on his Middle East trip, I believe. Adams' decision to carry out the three reverences was a decision to submit himself to the ceremony of a monarch that he'd engaged in bloody rebellion against (with a lot of internal conflict), and Presidents since then have engaged in the meaningless ceremony that satisfies monarchs since the beginning, cf participation in military parades (memorably, sword dances in Bush's case) that only serve to appease a monarch with a display of power.

    As for the Japan example, people huffed and puffed when Clinton bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Don't kid yourself that the response would've been any different had Obama bowed to the monarch of a country in which bowing is a common gesture.

    It's incredibly petty to imagine that bowing to someone objectively takes away any real leverage we might have with them.
  • Dirt Lawyer
    There seems to be a lot of baseless conjecture on this topic. I appreciate your comments, but the protocol that applies to the President is different than that which applies to U.S. diplomatic personnel and ordinary American citizens.

    The President is the head of state of a Republic, and therefore does not offer deferential courtesies to monarchs and other foreign government officers which are not reciprocated. Bowing would be appropriate if the foreign head of state (or ambassador) does likewise, as for example, the Japanese do. Cheek kissing is likewise appropriate if reciprocated, as the French and Russians do. Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the President to render the "three reverences" to a monarch (or a foreign head of state) as portrayed in the John Adams miniseries. In the show, Adams was the ambassador to the court of King George III following the Revolution, and would not be elected President for another 11 years.

    The basic principal of the governing protocol is that the U.S. President, as the head of state, deals with monarchs and other foreign heads of state as equals, not as a subject or supplicant.
  • JOHN
    The President stooped and shook hands with the guy. Sign of respect. Bush held hands with the guy amongst the flowers for a nice stroll. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/eveni...
  • BS
    your link on Bush bowing, kissing, and receiving a medal from King Abdullah doesn't work
  • CNN probably took down the video when they saw people checking it out... was part of a stock video ordering site that they have that I figured out how to directly link to.

    Edit: Link still works for me, but wouldn't be surprised if it goes down.
  • Rocks
    I don't really get the relevance here. The point was Presidents don't bow. Bush is clearly not bowing but receiving a medal and John Adams was Ambassador at the time. Who ever said the Ambassador shouldn't bow? Not only should he bow it is part of his job. He should do it to any head of state, not just royalty.
  • Um, I was responding to, "Didn’t anyone tell President Obama that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"

    Now, if you're complaining that Obama breached diplomatic protocol. That's fine. It's somewhat different to think that, as many have, Obama is somehow hinting at future deference to a major figure in Islam (particularly, many have said this is more evidence that he's a secret Muslim).

    I don't think that bowing is part of an Ambassador's job, by the way. He's not a subject, and, beyond that, it's not required to subject yourself to *all* local customs.

    @Ben I agree that the reset button thing was one of the stupidest bits of diplomacy ever conceived. It blows my mind that someone employed by Clinton/Obama came up with that idea, and that it was given the green light at several other points without someone saying something about the obvious reference there.
  • scooby509
    Oh, please. In 1785 the balance of power was one republic clinging to life vs. every major power ruled by a king or queen. Through a great deal of American blood, we have made royalty obsolete, and it dishonors the memory of the fallen to forget what they fought for. The question isn't whether 44 screwed up, but why.

    This and other gaffes (like that idiotic reset button) are really symptomatic of the larger incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Even the fact that he's essentially just repeating 43's pandering shows it: 44 wants to break with 43's foreign policy, but is so uninterested in devising his own coherent policy that he goes to unprecedented (and unpresidential) lengths to deride 43's policies while essentially leaving them unchanged!

    And the result of this incoherence is that our allies are losing confidence in us and our enemies are drawing up plans. 44 seriously needs to pull his head out of his ass because there are bigger problems in the world than a recession.
  • First, Obama didn't "present himself as a subject" of anybody. Second, look at the post I was responding to -- "Americans don't bow to anybody" -- there's nothing specious about my example. Adams wasn't a subject of Britain, either. Perhaps Obama violated some State Dept protocol; who cares? He's not sacrificing American sovereignty, though, and the newly discovered concern for American attitudes towards the Saudis are hilarious. I don't recall much of a peep in January 2008 when Bush promised billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia in exchange for vague assurances of looking the other way if we attacked Iran, and an opportunity to beg for increased oil exports. Somewhat more substantive than bowing.
  • steve h
    Your example of Adams' deference to King George III is specious. Adams was on a diplomatic mission as a minister; today he might be called an envoy or ambassador. This is entirely different than the president presenting himself as a subject of the foreign king, as did Obama with his gesture.
  • When was the non-bowing tradition established? It's really hilarious that "conservatives" are convinced that empty gestures like this are something to be concerned about. It's not at all different from their various complaints about the left's, well, kowtowing to political correctness.
  • N. O'Brain
    Um, dude, the President is not bowing, he's leaning over to recieve a medal.

    Try looking at what you're looking at.

    As to John Adams, well, the non-bowing tradition hadn't been established yet, so I forgive him.
blog comments powered by Disqus