RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events France

Anyone who thinks the French are somehow inferior to Anglophones are ignorant gits.

Point 1: Some historians argue that bad blood between the French and Anglophones arose because of Henry V's actions in executing captured French nobility (Battle of Agincourt, from memory). So, by one interpretation, the English started it.

Point 2. Saying French are cowardly or hopeless because they were defeated by Germany in WW1 and WW2 is no way to measure the ability of the French now. The French provided UN troops for Cambodia; provided ground troops for Bosnia, and intervened in Rwanda (although their aims for doing this were highly suspect). As at 1998, France had cut back it troops to 5000 in Africa, dwarfing Anglo-Saxon involvement in that continent. The Charles de Gaulle is France's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Even China doesn't have one of those.

Point 3. 49 states attended the Franco-African summit in Paris in 1998. This excludes Francophone nations in the Pacific, the Carribean and Asia (like Vietnam and Cambodia). The French are a formidable political entity. Guess who helped kick the US off the UN Human Rights committee, a major embarrassment to US diplomatic
capability?

Point 4. France's courts are actively running cyberspace, running amok over US constitution rights of free speech (the Yahoo! case). The US in response is trying to get the Hague Convention up and running.

Point 5. French students study French philosophy up until the end of high school. Their educational standards urinates over US standards.

Judging France on the back of two defeats to the German army over 60 years ago is sheer ignorant foolishness. The Germans and the French are best friends now: they are the chief proponents of the European Rapid Reaction Force, an effective substitute to NATO (and Anglophone) reliance for European security.

Most folks who post there don't seem to be worried about more than who should be on the book and who sucks and who rules...

I've never met a Frenchman/woman I haven't liked and I've never been to France...I have nothing against them or their country.

It just boggles my mind how many people can be so condescending and thinking that "my country is so great but yours sucks".

[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: Bianca ]

Some people annoy the crap out of me.

average american's opinion of france/the french:

they're snotty to us for god knows what reason, and "we saved your ass in wwII."

the end.

is the opinion justified? i dunno. i've never been to france. i know a few french girls (socially and biblically) and they're nice to me (again, socially and biblically).

but, thats just on a personal context. i guess the general opinion, tho grossly abstracted and simplified above, is, in actuality, based on the above.

as far as the US goes, the WWII generation is still alive, around, revered, studied, and remembered. france being defeated and our helping them out are major key points to that war and post-war era.

there's the facts that the opinions and myths have grown from. and, because of this, i guess that every war-time event since is scrutinized all the more. anytime the french make a good or bold move, its nearly ignored. anytime they make a bad or "cowardly" move, its hyped.

with the current war on terrorism, i know there was a big uproar on france's wavering decisions. first, they wanted no part of it, then they were willing to join, but not actively, etc, etc.

does that make them inferior as a people? no. is it sometimes fun to think so, tho? i guess so!

In addition, these were events from 60 years ago. Its doesn't follow that France has to agree to eveything the US says because of the invasion of Normandy.

They're generally snotty because:

1. they (rightly) think of US primarily but also other Western popular entertainment as inferior to French entertainment;

2. no one likes to be reminded that they are on the decline as a world power. When great powers take over from each other (the only exception being the US from the UK, because of cultural reasons), there is usually a period of tension and conflict.

3. the US is missionary in its zeal to promote its interests. It outlasted the Soviet Union, which has reinforced the concept that its way and system is universally correct (ideological imperialism). This might even be true, but the French don't want to have their noses rubbed in it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
There is a parallel - whether Americans like to admit it or not, there is consensus by many historians that the Soviet Union defeated Germany in its advance west, rather than the US and its Western allies.

---

oh, it was definitely a factor.

reminds me of a similar chap by the name of 'napolean.' strikingly similar... i wonder if france remembers that...

regardless, the US intervening was an IMMEDIATE (in 'war terms') rescue. their being involved made a complete and obvious impact, that, had it not occured, the russian 'winter-trap' would have had no effect.

quote:

---

In addition, these were events from 60 years ago. Its doesn't follow that France has to agree to eveything the US says because of the invasion of Normandy.

---

i agree

but, like i said before, the US (and most of the world, actually, but specifically the US) is a society enthralled and based upon WW2 culture. its the formation of most history classes, most modern day war references, documentations, vfw's, etc, etc. its one of the major strengths in our society because its really when america, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proved itself as the world's superpower.

and because of all the good the US accomplished at that time, everything is remembered that made us look good or other places look bad, france included.

quote:

---

1. they (rightly) think of US primarily but also other Western popular entertainment as inferior to French entertainment.

---

no comment.

quote:

---

2. no one likes to be reminded that they are on the decline as a world power. When great powers take over from each other (the only exception being the US from the UK, because of cultural reasons), there is usually a period of tension and conflict..

---

like any good mother would say, "but that still doesnt make it right"

quote:

---

3. the US is missionary in its zeal to promote its interests. It outlasted the Soviet Union, which has reinforced the concept that its way and system is universally correct (ideological imperialism). This might even be true, but the French don't want to have their noses rubbed in it.

---

then why develop euro-disney?

quote:

---

reminds me of a similar chap by the name of 'napolean.' strikingly similar... i wonder if france remembers that...

---

quote:

---

regardless, the US intervening was an IMMEDIATE (in 'war terms') rescue. their being involved made a complete and obvious impact, that, had it not occured, the russian 'winter-trap' would have had no effect.

---

quote:

---

i agree

but, like i said before, the US (and most of the world, actually, but specifically the US) is a society enthralled and based upon WW2 culture. its the formation of most history classes, most modern day war references, documentations, vfw's, etc, etc. its one of the major strengths in our society because its really when america, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proved itself as the world's superpower.

and because of all the good the US accomplished at that time, everything is remembered that made us look good or other places look bad, france included.

---

Non comprehende. So you are saying that the geopolitical systems initiated at the end of WW2 (and also at the Yalta Conference during WW2) justify kowtowing to US priorities?

Also, my history lessons were quite a bit different to yours, with little or no emphasis on WW2. Japan's history lessons have no emphasis on WW2 (I know for a fact, because a Japanese friend of mine told me she only studied WW2 hisotry in university).

I also disagree with this, if only on the timing:

quote:

---

its one of the major strengths in our society because its really when america, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proved itself as the world's superpower

---

quote:

---

no comment

---

quote:

---

like any good mother would say, "but that still doesnt make it right"

---

quote:

---

then why develop euro-disney?

---

One of the champions of French business is the guy who runs Vivendi Entertainment. He transformed a waste disposal company into a huge entertainment conglomerate which owns Universal Studios (thereby "planting the French flag" on US soil, as he said to wild applause from the French public). He recently said that France's special cultural position in the world will soon be at an end - he was, I guess, referring to globalisation of media. Suddenly he is no longer the darling of France. They are very sensitive to this sort of thing.

quote:

---

They do remember Napolean, as a hero.

---

yeah, yeah, i know. i was just referring to the historical recurrance -- napolean was the first to be 'defeated' by russia's 'winter trap.'

hitler's army was decimated in almost the same exact fashion.

quote:

---

The Russian winter stopped the forward advance of the Germans, but the vast manpower of the Soviet army (and their cheap tanks) pushed the Germans back. See Antony Beevor's book, Stalingrad, for more on this.

---

your posts are long enuf -- im not gonna go get a book! damn...

in short, the russians obviously packed a powerful punch, but more so a deffensive retreat (which was, of course, their strongest strategy and done completely on purpose). their manpower growed in power as the germans decreased in number.

see rob's post. ... from before.

quote:

---

Non comprehende. So you are saying that the geopolitical systems initiated at the end of WW2 (and also at the Yalta Conference during WW2) justify kowtowing to US priorities?

---

no.

id never say anything with words that big.

my statement was merely to point out the basis of american thought (as this statement is a question as to why americans think the french are stinky).

most of our thought is derived from successes brought about during ww2, which, in conjunction, highlights france's "less succesful" moments.

so, at a glance, we see us kicking ass, and the french running away.

its brief, stereotypical, 60 years old, etc, etc... but its the explanation.

quote:

---

Also, my history lessons were quite a bit different to yours, with little or no emphasis on WW2. Japan's history lessons have no emphasis on WW2

---

it is, as said, the victor that writes the history books.

quote:

---

The Soviet Union emerged from the war in a position to rapidly confront the US, and expand without fear of reprisal (Hungary, Czechslovakia). US predominance in world affairs only came to the fore with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

---

ahh, but it was the beginning of the cold war (the end of ww2) that set up the US as the predominant force - challenged (equally, perhaps) by that of the soviet world.

still, tho, the 'known world' was little more than england prior to that. this was the US's big advance and 'victory' over its predecessor.

quote:

---

It is hard to comment on this point, because I assume, like me, you are not a French speaker, and so the media there is inaccessible. France's top rating TV programme is a non-fiction book review show. Bit different in stature to Survivor.

---

different than survivor. im sure they dont boast about le howard le stern, either.

i just find it righteous to proclaim one form of entertainment superior to another. entertainment is whatever the viewer wants it to be - some get their kicks off 'seinfeld,' some off 'jerry lewis'. one is as bad or as genius as the next.

quote:

---

Regardless of the motivation, having criticism of the policy of an ally is a healthy thing (its part of the Westminster system of democracy inherited by Western countries, after all).

---

were this the case, then why do you have an issue with the american dislike of france?

couldnt i use the infamous 'healthy thing' defense of 2002, as well?

quote:

---

Phew, my computer crashed as I was posting this...

---

"made in france"

quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen:

regardless, the US intervening [ in WW II] was an IMMEDIATE (in 'war terms') rescue. Their being involved made a complete and obvious impact, that, had it not occured, the Russian 'winter-trap' would have had no effect.

---

Well, the Russian winter definitely stopped the advance of Germany's armored tank infantry. It didn't defeat Germany, but it definitely stopped Germany's advance.

quote:

---

T-Dave (or Dave Wanking, if you must):

The Russian winter stopped the forward advance of the Germans, but the vast manpower of the Soviet army (and their cheap tanks) pushed the Germans back. See Antony Beevor's book, Stalingrad, for more on this.

---

Actually, through the lend-lease act, the U.S. was churning out planes and tanks for Russia and Britain.

The battle of Stalingrad is considered the major turning point of WW II conflict between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. The U.S. declared war in December 1941, and entered the war in early 1942. The Battle of Stalingrad occurred in late winter 1942 and early 1943. Although Soviet Russians were fighting the battle, the supply of U.S. weapons allowed the Russians to turn the tide.

Russia was producing its own tanks, but not in the numbers needed to defeat Germany. Russia was very dependent on U.S. military hardware to turn the tide.

While the U.S. had troops on the ground as well in Europe (and Africa, and the Pacific), the U.S. was primarily a supplier of heavy weaponry, from U.S. factories that were well out of German/Axis bombing range. Mostly, the U.S. provided manufacturing for the Allied war against Germany. And Britain, France and Russia provided the fighting men. The U.S. could not have fought Germany by itself, and Britain, France and Russia could not have won without U.S. aid.
It was a group effort, none of the Allies was expendable to Allied victory.

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]

quote:

---

my statement was merely to point out the basis of american thought (as this statement is a question as to why americans think the french are stinky).

most of our thought is derived from successes brought about during ww2, which, in conjunction, highlights france's "less succesful" moments.

so, at a glance, we see us kicking ass, and the french running away.

its brief, stereotypical, 60 years old, etc, etc... but its the explanation.

---

Ah well, and there you have it. My home country just spent a day in mourning for the decimation of its flower of youth in Ypres, Gallipoli and Somme in WW1. So, yes, memories are long. But its funny that you feel that way about the French, your allies, than, say, the Germans, who caused the whole mess.

quote:

---

it is, as said, the victor that writes the history books.

---

quote:

---

ahh, but it was the beginning of the cold war (the end of ww2) that set up the US as the predominant force - challenged (equally, perhaps) by that of the soviet world.

---

quote:

---

still, tho, the 'known world' was little more than england prior to that. this was the US's big advance and 'victory' over its predecessor.

---

If the US victory was to advance into these "unknown" areas, beyond the reach of its
imperial predecessors, then this is wrong too. From the above list, take out a third of Africa (I'm guessing) and Indo-China, representing France's sphere of influence. What is left is the British Empire - upon which "the sun never sets". The US does not count itself as an imperial power (which I disagree with, but that is a debate for another day), but even in terms of sheer influence the US lags behind the British at their height. (This pre-eminence was assisted, I concede, by the thinking that "colonialism" was not a dirty word.)

quote:

---

i just find it righteous to proclaim one form of entertainment superior to another. entertainment is whatever the viewer wants it to be - some get their kicks off 'seinfeld,' some off 'jerry lewis'. one is as bad or as genius as the next.

---

quote:

---

were this the case, then why do you have an issue with the american dislike of france?

couldnt i use the infamous 'healthy thing' defense of 2002, as well?

---

If you want to pick on the French for being a bunch of redneck goatfuckers for letting the racist Le Pen get through to the final round of the French presidential race, which they did two days ago, then I'm right behind you. But you can't give them shit for losing to improbably fast German armoured formations 63 years ago.

quote:

---

"made in france"

---

Finally, as you said in your opening post, you've met some nice French people. So have I. So to say that the "French" are generally snotty towards Anglophones is not borne out by anecdotal evidence from either of us (although a shopkeeper did get mouthy with me in Paris for not weighing my fruit before I brought it to the till). Its like saying all Americans are gunslinging Biblebashers, when clearly they are not so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Actually, through the lend-lease act, the U.S. was churning out planes and tanks for Russia and Britain.

The battle of Stalingrad is considered the major turning point of WW II conflict between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. The U.S. declared war in December 1941, and entered the war in early 1942. The Battle of Stalingrad occurred in late winter 1942 and early 1943. Although Soviet Russians were fighting the battle, the supply of U.S. weapons allowed the Russians to turn the tide.

Russia was producing its own tanks, but not in the numbers needed to defeat Germany. Russia was very dependent on U.S. military hardware to turn the tide.

While the U.S. had troops on the ground as well in Europe (and Africa, and the Pacific), the U.S. was primarily a supplier of heavy weaponry, from U.S. factories that were well out of German/Axis bombing range. Mostly, the U.S. provided manufacturing for the Allied war against Germany. And Britain, France and Russia provided the fighting men. The U.S. could not have fought Germany by itself, and Britain, France and Russia could not have won without U.S. aid.
It was a group effort, none of the Allies was expendable to Allied victory.

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Dave the Wonder Boy ]

---

Actually, just looking at this again, I think the Soviet effort can also be expressed in terms of war losses: Red Army dead, 9 million, and 18 million wounded. Civilians dead: 18 million. This in total is 26 million, more than 5 times the total of German war dead.

Rome was able to maintain its empire through a high birth rate leading to a large population. Its occurred to me that the Soviet Union won the Grat Patriotic War for the same reason: they were at the end of the day able to drag in soldiers from as far away as Siberia.

quote:

---

. I think France resents the U.S. prominence that exceeds that of France, and it appears to me (as in the example of France voting the U.S. off the U.N. Human Rights Commission) the French seem to do whatever they can to frustrate U.S. military and diplomatic prestige.

---

Getting kicked off the UNHCR was payback for abandoning the Kyoto Accord.

French belligerence to US interests is a given. A few immediate examples:

1. in 1995, Chirac remarked to UN officials, "If you want to count on idiotic behaviour you can always count on the Americans."

2. in 1995, France said it would become a full member of NATO if a French admiral could take over NATO's Southern Comman in the Med. This was knocked bak (it would have meant the Sixth Fleet was in the command of a Frenchman).

3. in December 1995 Chirac told French TV that
European union was essential to counter "American hegemony".

4. the French refused to toast Warren Christopher at his farewell appearance at a gathering of NATO ministers in Brussels.

5. France backed Boutros Boutros Ghali over the appointment of Kofi Annan, primarily to displease the US.

6. France pulled out of NATO in the 50s, and then entered into a joint space programme with the Soviet Union.

7. France refused to allow US jets to fly through French airspace to bomb Tripoli (the retaliatory strike for the Lockerbie bombing).

quote:

---

Dave:
But its funny that you feel that way about the French, your allies, than, say, the Germans, who caused the whole mess.

---

gosh darn you, dave!

i never stated that these were my opinions. your proposed question was searching for an answer as to why americans, in general, feel a certain way. i gave my own opinion in my first post here, in the first few lines. after that, i was speaking as an indirect representative of those you questioned.

silly man.

quote:

---

Actually, everyone writes their own history books.

---

but the victor's becomes fact, and standardized. the losers' becomes home knowledge.

quote:

---

For a long while the US was trailing, and badly.

---

in the space race, sure. the sides were often turned back and forth. maybe they were more advanced in cooking, gardening, as well. im sure there are dozens of examples where the russians advanced faster than the americans, and the americas faster than the russians. (and other categories where both were slaughtered by a third world party)

regardless, the US was undeniably still set up as the predominant force in the world (again, paralleled by russia).

quote:

---

something i said:
Still, tho, the 'known world' was little more than england prior to that. this was the US's big advance and 'victory' over its predecessor.

then something you said:
yadda yadda

---

ill stand by my statement. ill also stand by yours. we're just referring to two different contexts.

quote:

---

The difference is, though, what you have said above: France's prejudices are based on their exposure to contemporary US mass media. American prejudices are based on France's loss to German expertise (which also trounced the British Expeditionary Force, but no one picks on the Brits) 60 years ago. They have a more modern view.

---

so its ok for france to proclaim a 'superiority' of sorts cuz they make more 'classy' tv shows? but its not ok, or is 'outdated thinking,' for the US to proclaim a 'superiority' of sorts cuz they were the saviors in, perhaps, the most vicious and important battle on our planet during human-years? highlighted by both our successes and frances' failures?

ok then.

[sarcasm]you enjoy your 'les miserables,' and ill enjoy my freedom. deal?[/sarcasm]

ww2 happened 60 years ago, yes. that is no grounds for dismissing or belittling it. were the US not around, there might be no france. but i'm sure i could do fine without french tv.

do i think its not right for things to be judged on something that our grandfathers (or us, llance) were involved in? yeah, i dont think its right.

but, again, this is not MY viewpoint, just THE viewpoint.

further, you state that britain was in a similar situation as france, and, frankly, id agree with that. big differences, tho, are that britain was not defeated, and in the 60 years since, britain has, time and time again, gone out of its way to prove its strength and loyalty to the US, and its courage in battle after battle. the same can simply not be said of france, expecially in terms of quantity.

quote:

---

Finally, as you said in your opening post, you've met some nice French people. So have I. So to say that the "French" are generally snotty towards Anglophones is not borne out by anecdotal evidence from either of us (although a shopkeeper did get mouthy with me in Paris for not weighing my fruit before I brought it to the till). Its like saying all Americans are gunslinging Biblebashers, when clearly they are not so.

---

yeah! there y'go.

how come y'realized this at the end of yer post, man! i coulda saved myself the trouble of reading!

quote:

---

the other dave
After having dated two French women, my observation is that the French are "snotty" to Americans because they resent the prevalence of American culture.

---

i can agree to that! in fact... im pretty sure i said that somewhere (not here... in one of our previous 'western culture' debates, i believe).

movies, tv, and music are undeniably many things:
huge propoganda items
huge armerican 'arms'
based off american ideas.

yes, its true, 'millionaire' was a brit show.

but nooOOOoo... stupid typhoid boy had t'go n'disregard it. you always liked wonderboy better!!!

quote:

---

And with their globally vilified nuclear testing in the Pacific a few years ago, France also clings to its national image as a global power. I think France resents the U.S. prominence that exceeds that of France, and it appears to me (as in the example of France voting the U.S. off the U.N. Human Rights Commission) the French seem to do whatever they can to frustrate U.S. military and diplomatic prestige.

---

im all over this quote! me rikey!

quote:

---

My only complaint is: France is an ally, and I wish they'd behave more like a friend of the U.S than an enemy who tries to undermine us at every turn

---

this one, too!

cyber high five, wonder boy!

take that you stupid french-lovin, no-longer-typhoid dave!

and finally...

quote:

---

this isnt really a quote, but... referring to everything dave said, in his 7:40 am post, above

---

with all this being said... and obviously knowledge you already have...

why are you still asking the intial question?

One of the funniest things ever was when I was cooking breakfast for my former French girlfriend Lynda, and I made her a nice plate of french toast, using english muffin bread, with fruit and bacon on the side.

She looked at it with a clueless expression, and asked me: "What's this?"

I laughed and said "It's French toast!"

And she responded, "We don't eat this in France."

I thought that was hilarious.
I guess it's an American creation, and someone called it French toast to give it an exotic sounding name. Or maybe they just don't prepare this breakfast in her region (she was from Lyon).

She also never ate cinnamon before, and hated it when she tried it. I've never met someone who didn't like cinnamon.

Ah, those crazy French...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Oh, and probably not surprisingly, french fries are not French either.

---

bastards!

is there no end to their evil!?

...but I'll be back, mwahahaha etc.

their #1 selling book right now is a conspiracy theory book, on how the US gubment purposely set up the september 11th stuff.

thanks for the relief aid, froggies!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
Non, rien.

---

aw, pas, rien?

pourquoi pas rien?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
I could be wrong, but I think the French also still harbor something of a grudge against us for the way they were forced to surrender at Dien Bien Phu. The United States spent a lot of money trying to keep the French in the first Vietnam War, citing the "Domino Theory." Then, when the French had their backs against the wall and were begging us for help, we didn't do anything.

We had good reasons -- personally, I'm not convinced we should've been involved at all. But the French were forced to surrender, and ended up losing Vietnam because of it. Imagine how we'd feel if we lost, say, Hawaii, and could blame it on someone else's fickle aid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
But what I was really thinking was that France was the center of culture in Europe for a really long time. If you really look at the divisions of Europe, historically, what you've got is Scandinavia, Germany, Russia, the Mediterranean, Britain, and France.

---