If you ask the French, they'll say that the antipathy comes from the 16th century when colonization of America began. The people who colonized America were the riff-raff. The French aristocracy believed that the immigrants were scum that couldn't make it in France, had wrong religious believes etc. Thus, the French still feel superior over the American people.
French-bashing - the historical origin?
- Thread starter Wolfhart
- Start date
Verbose
Deity
Sounds as if you missed the French revolution somehow.
In what way shape or form do you imagine French 17th c. aristo sentiments have any relevance to the Republic of France?
Me? Making jokes at England's expanse?And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them.
Napoleon's was not a foreigner. France bought Corsica to Genoa 3 years before his birth to be sure he would be French.
About the language: it's a bit suprising French would be considered gay by English speakers, given that a good part of English words are of French origin. I think French is the main contributor to English "main" words. Or perhaps it's because the grammar as be been extreamly simplified so the English could understand it. Therefore, French looks more sophisticated and refined, and sophistication is associated with gay??
More seriously, we have a saying in French
"Qui veut noyer son chien l'accuse de la rage"
The guy who wants to kill his dog says his a rabid dog
A few historical reference:
- About WWII:
The French did lose the land war, as any other European countries, including Britian and Russia. The British were saved by the Channel, and the Russian by ... Ruuuussssssiiiiiiiaaaaaa (what a large country!) so they had time to build up their forces, learn how to fight the Germans. The French didn't, and it leads to Vichy. Only 7,000 French joined De Gaulle in England after his famous call of July 1940.
However, some are quick to forget that despiste France being occupied by the Germans, the Free French Forces fought in Tunisia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, Lebanon, reached 100,000 men in Italy (1943). In june 1944, they numbered 400,000 people
Wiki about the 2nd Division said:
By September 1944 the Free French forces stood at 560,000, which rose to 1 million by the end of 1944, and were fighting in Alsace, the Alps and Brittany. By the end of the war in Europe (May 1945), the Free French forces comprised 1,250,000, including 7 infantry and 3 armoured divisions fighting in Germany.
The French were beaten in 1940, but were resilient and tenacious and managed to be there at the end.
- About the unwashed smelling French
After the liberation of France, France was still in a very bad economical shape after the occupation of the country by Germany. Rationning remained in force for a relatively long time while the country was reduild.
Soap was one of the rationned goods. So it's true that when the Americans were in France in 1944-1945, the French didn't wash much, as soap was to rare to allow daily showers.
But nowadays, we have running water, and even hot water
!Conclusion
I think the real explanation of the bashing is simply that :
- the British were the arch ennemy during the Napoleonic wars, and try to diabolize Napoleon, downplay the French results at the time, and promote their own deeds and Wellington. See the posts from PrivateHudson, he's clearly brainwashed
(a friendly to PH if he reads it).- the Americans try to undermine French influence in the world, as we are not supporting their current policy the way Tony Blair is. In fact, from here it seems the bashing from the Americans has enormously increased in 2003, when we opposed them about Iraq.
For many French people the normal behaviour would rather be "I don't like your Big Macs, and I won't speak to you in your language, because I hardly speak it given the poor way language are taught in that country"
What? A post from Nobody with France in it, and no reference to the Rainbow Warrior? Tradition are really falling appart
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
Nah, when Americans began to arrive at the front the mutinies were over a long time ago, and the summer offensive of 1918 didn’t depend on the Americans for its success, but they did help.
So because of the collapse in june 1940 the French soldier is forever condemned as a coward? And the Free French couldn’t be brave soldiers because they had British and American help? Ever heard of the battle of Bir Hakeim, or how the Free French 2nd Armoured Division defeated German Panzer divisions and liberated Paris? [Edit: crossposting with Steph, see his account above]
Even the Vichy forces put up a brave and stubborn defence in Oran against the American invaders. So I still don’t see your point here. I agree about the miserable performance in the summer of 1940, but that’s all.
There were French paratroopers, and French officers (and NCO's I think) leading the legionnaires, who were trained by the French Army.Of course the foreign legionnaires were brave, they are not French. Might be why they are called Foreign.
Point takenBut hey, this is just a stereotype. It is about as accurate as most other stereotypes, ie inaccurate. You did ask where it came from, and I told you.
and you're right. Even though I don't agree with you about the above, it is what too many people believe to be true.
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
Thanks, I knew nothing about that
Point taken, I can be mistaken in my beliefs about the cordial American-French relations. But if I remember correctly the Brits did humiliate the Americans on more than one occasion when the latter wanted to enforce the Monroe doctrine and the Royal Navy showed that the Brits didnt feel bound by this doctrine. I believe that is why the Americans developed their sea-going navy at last.
What American army? It wasn't until the Cold War that we began to keep a sizable professional army; our army in 1940 couldn't have stopped much of anyone. As was our wont, though, we ramped up pretty quickly, and by the end of the war we had a very formidable force.
One thing I'd add to the discussion is that a lot of Americans seem to dislike the French for a perceived self-importance. Many Americans are very proud of our role as the world's lone superpower and cultural hegemon, and they look poorly upon others who have pretensions to such roles. France is a country that, in their estimation, thinks of itself a bit too highly.
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen yet
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
I agree, that is my impression too up here in my corner of the world. Freedom Fries and other such crap.
I'll tell you a secret... The world being a flattened sphere, it has no corner
. Don't spread this informationto quickly or it may lead to a worldwide panic.
If there were anyone within French, he should modernize Maginot line and build enlargement in boarders with Belgium and Luxembourg
Verbose
Deity
Or perhaps just not advance the bulk of his best forces into Belgium where they could be cut off, but maintain an agressive defence of the French border.
Verbose
Deity
You can add to it the way the US reacted to the fall of France in 1940 on the highest political level, Roosevelt himself, Admiral Leahy the US ambassador to France and Cordell Hull of the State Department. They concluded that France was a morally spent, useless nation, the logical conclusion of which was Vichy France, being "the Real France". The Free French had it the other way around of course.That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen yet
Not backing the Mickey-Mouse operation of The Free French the Brits set up in London in 1940 made every sense at first. But when the US admin by the time The Free French had 400.000+ troops fighting under allied command (by 1943 iirc) still refused to even recognise de Gaulle, preferring to court the old Vichy hands under Darlan's leadership, then they were just being contrary, refusing to acknowledge that their first assesment of 1940 might have been erroneous.
Admitting being wrong doesn't seem to be the most prominent trait of Americans (though Eisenhower did, and personally apologised to de Gaulle for the US treatment of the Free French during the war), and somehow the Roosevelt admin's view of France in WWII as generally useless seems to have been perpetuated.
There still seems to be a debate over what "The Real France" is, and not just in France, as might be expected, but in the US as well. That's one hell of a recognition of the importance of France in the eyes of Americans, even if it's entirely negative. Something is at stake here for the Americans...
I suppose it may also be relevant that the United States and France both, at approximately the same time, reinvented themselves as post-monarchical republics with lots of fanfare about the rights of man and so on. You could say that ever since then they've been rivals for the post of flagship "modern" nation.
El Justo
Deity
this is an interesting thread
i guess my take on it all is that, imho at least, French bashing is simply a 'joke'; a mixture of stereotype and fallacy that is imo unwarranted.
of course, i can joke and toss the 'frog' reference around in private correspondence. however, it is totally in jest and most importantly, in private. i mean, it is a generaliztion like Jerry, Tommy, or Yankee.
i wholly disagree w/ the nature of 'french cowardice'. the french fought w/ tremendous bravery during ww1 and in certain instances during ww2. if memory serves me right, it was poor leadership during ww1 which led to the end-of-war strife that the french army suffered (or at least primarily so).
otoh, during ww2 i think france got caught flat-footed. by that i mean that the static defense strategies in 1940 were very obsolete, the military hardware in use was clearly outdated (and poorly constructed in many cases), memories of the sacrifices of the previous war, and put simply, they were tremendously overwhelmed by the German war machine. yes, the French got smeared. but there's always more to a story than what is on the surface...
what i personally have a problem w/ is the post-ww2 obsession of France to retain its colonial holdings despite the pleas of her allies. this stubborness in algeria and vietnam was a huge mistake imo. so i guess it's de gaulle and his policies that i don't like.
a sidenote re vietnam:
i am keenly aware of the american pressure put on the french to act as a bulwark against communist expansion in SEA. however, this does not diminish france's poor showing and poor calcualtions here.
the allegations of wide-spread anti-semitism in france is disturbing to me. of course, this biasness exists in many corners of the globe. but i still find it disturbing nonetheless.
in sum - i have no hard feelings against the french. i actually feel bad for them to a certain degree (in the context that i think they're unfairly portrayed). i am aware of her contributions to the american republic, culture, democaratic ideals, cuisine, and even music (i'm a debussy fan myself). i laugh a little though when a frenchman puffs out his chest and declares to anyone who will listen that it is them who created the ideals of democracy etc however, such minor quibbles as this does not make for a negative image imo.
lastly - i find the american stereoptype that we think strictly in "military" terms in complete hogwash. it's offensive actually - at least to any american who is educated and can form a qualified and enlightened opinion. sure we like to poke fun at our traditional allies like france and britain, etc. but to generalize a statement like that is disappointing to see...
i guess my take on it all is that, imho at least, French bashing is simply a 'joke'; a mixture of stereotype and fallacy that is imo unwarranted.
of course, i can joke and toss the 'frog' reference around in private correspondence. however, it is totally in jest and most importantly, in private. i mean, it is a generaliztion like Jerry, Tommy, or Yankee.
i wholly disagree w/ the nature of 'french cowardice'. the french fought w/ tremendous bravery during ww1 and in certain instances during ww2. if memory serves me right, it was poor leadership during ww1 which led to the end-of-war strife that the french army suffered (or at least primarily so).
otoh, during ww2 i think france got caught flat-footed. by that i mean that the static defense strategies in 1940 were very obsolete, the military hardware in use was clearly outdated (and poorly constructed in many cases), memories of the sacrifices of the previous war, and put simply, they were tremendously overwhelmed by the German war machine. yes, the French got smeared. but there's always more to a story than what is on the surface...
what i personally have a problem w/ is the post-ww2 obsession of France to retain its colonial holdings despite the pleas of her allies. this stubborness in algeria and vietnam was a huge mistake imo. so i guess it's de gaulle and his policies that i don't like.
a sidenote re vietnam:
i am keenly aware of the american pressure put on the french to act as a bulwark against communist expansion in SEA. however, this does not diminish france's poor showing and poor calcualtions here.
the allegations of wide-spread anti-semitism in france is disturbing to me. of course, this biasness exists in many corners of the globe. but i still find it disturbing nonetheless.
in sum - i have no hard feelings against the french. i actually feel bad for them to a certain degree (in the context that i think they're unfairly portrayed). i am aware of her contributions to the american republic, culture, democaratic ideals, cuisine, and even music (i'm a debussy fan myself). i laugh a little though when a frenchman puffs out his chest and declares to anyone who will listen that it is them who created the ideals of democracy etc
however, such minor quibbles as this does not make for a negative image imo.lastly - i find the american stereoptype that we think strictly in "military" terms in complete hogwash. it's offensive actually - at least to any american who is educated and can form a qualified and enlightened opinion. sure we like to poke fun at our traditional allies like france and britain, etc. but to generalize a statement like that is disappointing to see...
Mon Mauler
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 274
Americans are generally short-sighted with short memories. We generally don't know all that much about the world outside of our borders, and we generally don't know much about history predating the birth of our nation. With that in mind, I provide my take on the source of anti-Frenchism in America.
First, the American colonists did a noble thing and shed much blood in the Revolution. We defeated the world's foremost military power and asserted the rights of man. In highschools across the country the children are taught that French assistance was mainly relegated to hand-wringing, and once the issue had moved to our favor only then did the French decide to help. Even then they did not participate in any real fighting, their contribution mainly being naval bombardment at Yorktown.
Not only that, but after the noble Americans stood up for the rights of man in the face of a Europe dominated by aristocrats, then the French decided to copy our ideas and call them their own. To top it off, the French botched the French Revolution, and allowed Napoleon to not only become a dictator but to also crown himself Emperor. Sure, his military victories are taught in schools as being top rate, but they didn't really involve America. Napoleon's affect on the American state comes from the Louisiana Purchase, where he sold us a ridiculous amount of land for two cents on the dollar. What an idiot!
Eventually, Napoleon III came not long after Napoleon, and he was a resoundingly poor leader that did not deal fairly with America. After that came WWI, where France decided it would be a good idea to engage in trench warfare. Only after the United States brought true military initiative and prowess to the field were the Allies able to defeat the German menace.
Of course, this was followed by WWII, when the French decided to let the Germans take over the country in a mere two weeks time. In American schools it is often said with more than a small dose of seriousness that the French army lost more men by drowning in the Atlantic Ocean after they couldn't find anywhere else to retreat to than they did fighting the German army.
Of course, throughout the war and for sometime thereafter France remained an economically and militarily poor country that was constantly supported by American donations and protection.
Then, of course, the French government, which has never shown real intelligence, though they could beat up on some Vietnamese farmers armed with pitchforks. So they decided to send the same old poorly trained and cowardly French soldiers to Vietnam only to be beaten by the Vietnamese farmers at Dien Bien Phu. Once again, America had to clean up the mess the French made. So the French left and we sent in real soldiers. By this time, Vietnam had militarised, but the Americans, unlike the French, never lost a battle.
Currently, the French government has continued to waffle in the face of the obvious threat of terrorism. Once again the Americans and British forces have been deployed to hostile lands and are fighting a conflict which obviously benefits the French, but the French are making no real contributions (and that might be a good thing).
So, in sum, the Americans gave the French the Revolution and saved her from Germany twice. We generously paid their way through the reconstruction following WWII and bailed them out of Vietnam. Currently, our forces are fighting overseas for a direct benefit to them.
And what does America receive from France for our benevolence? Hostility and arrogance. The French have tried to assume the ideals of the Revolution as their own. They prohibit some American words from being used in print and official circumstances. To American tourists the French are downright mean and abhor their presence. And forget any military or monetary assistance in international affairs. The French don't provide it, they just demand it. This is how they treat America, the savior of the French.
I haven't re-read any of what I just typed, but I think that just about every sentence I wrote is grossly exaggerated if not an outright lie. Nevertheless, the above is what is being taught in American schools in regards to history and the US-France relationship. The teachers obviously don't state these things so overtly, but the message is there in the omissions.
That's where the French-bashing is coming from.
First, the American colonists did a noble thing and shed much blood in the Revolution. We defeated the world's foremost military power and asserted the rights of man. In highschools across the country the children are taught that French assistance was mainly relegated to hand-wringing, and once the issue had moved to our favor only then did the French decide to help. Even then they did not participate in any real fighting, their contribution mainly being naval bombardment at Yorktown.
Not only that, but after the noble Americans stood up for the rights of man in the face of a Europe dominated by aristocrats, then the French decided to copy our ideas and call them their own. To top it off, the French botched the French Revolution, and allowed Napoleon to not only become a dictator but to also crown himself Emperor. Sure, his military victories are taught in schools as being top rate, but they didn't really involve America. Napoleon's affect on the American state comes from the Louisiana Purchase, where he sold us a ridiculous amount of land for two cents on the dollar. What an idiot!
Eventually, Napoleon III came not long after Napoleon, and he was a resoundingly poor leader that did not deal fairly with America. After that came WWI, where France decided it would be a good idea to engage in trench warfare. Only after the United States brought true military initiative and prowess to the field were the Allies able to defeat the German menace.
Of course, this was followed by WWII, when the French decided to let the Germans take over the country in a mere two weeks time. In American schools it is often said with more than a small dose of seriousness that the French army lost more men by drowning in the Atlantic Ocean after they couldn't find anywhere else to retreat to than they did fighting the German army.
Of course, throughout the war and for sometime thereafter France remained an economically and militarily poor country that was constantly supported by American donations and protection.
Then, of course, the French government, which has never shown real intelligence, though they could beat up on some Vietnamese farmers armed with pitchforks. So they decided to send the same old poorly trained and cowardly French soldiers to Vietnam only to be beaten by the Vietnamese farmers at Dien Bien Phu. Once again, America had to clean up the mess the French made. So the French left and we sent in real soldiers. By this time, Vietnam had militarised, but the Americans, unlike the French, never lost a battle.
Currently, the French government has continued to waffle in the face of the obvious threat of terrorism. Once again the Americans and British forces have been deployed to hostile lands and are fighting a conflict which obviously benefits the French, but the French are making no real contributions (and that might be a good thing).
So, in sum, the Americans gave the French the Revolution and saved her from Germany twice. We generously paid their way through the reconstruction following WWII and bailed them out of Vietnam. Currently, our forces are fighting overseas for a direct benefit to them.
And what does America receive from France for our benevolence? Hostility and arrogance. The French have tried to assume the ideals of the Revolution as their own. They prohibit some American words from being used in print and official circumstances. To American tourists the French are downright mean and abhor their presence. And forget any military or monetary assistance in international affairs. The French don't provide it, they just demand it. This is how they treat America, the savior of the French.
I haven't re-read any of what I just typed, but I think that just about every sentence I wrote is grossly exaggerated if not an outright lie. Nevertheless, the above is what is being taught in American schools in regards to history and the US-France relationship. The teachers obviously don't state these things so overtly, but the message is there in the omissions.
That's where the French-bashing is coming from.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
The quality of your school system really needs reforms. Or just abolishing an copying an existing. Would perhaps be better.
BTW the ones at Dien Bien Phu, who really fought were the French paratroopers and the German legionaries...
Adler
BTW the ones at Dien Bien Phu, who really fought were the French paratroopers and the German legionaries...
Adler
Yeeek
Seizing The Day
Adler, unfortunatly, not many people know about the former wermacht soldaten in the foreign legion.
Mon Mauler
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 274
Adler, our school system is in utter ruin, starting from kindergarten all the way through university. Even some of our top universities, such as the Ivy League schools, which are renowned throughout the world, are a joke. I honestly believe that I would have learned more and been better prepared to enter the work force if I had chosen not to attend school altogether.
But that is a topic for another thread (and another forum).
Just wanted to point out that a lot of the American mis-perception of the French is based on our school system.
But that is a topic for another thread (and another forum).
Just wanted to point out that a lot of the American mis-perception of the French is based on our school system.
Similar threads
