French-bashing - the historical origin?
- Thread starter Wolfhart
- Start date
TheAmerican
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 179
I think it goes back to the XYZ affair, that's when our relationship started to go bad. And, if you look back, that's when those nasty political cartoons of the French started popping up.
That's a falacious statement, look at my title below my name
First, I know that in England you are a bit retarted and have nowhere to sit down but stairs, but don't generalize, in France we invented comfortable chairs long ago.
Second, thinking in the stairs doesn't imply we are sitting down, just that we think while climbing the stairs, i.e. when doing something else.
Yes, I guess that being sitted in the rear of a taxi while someone else is driving you home requires a lot of concentration.
Yes, I guess that being sitted in the rear of a taxi while someone else is driving you home requires a lot of concentration.
It certainly does if the driver's French. They don't even know what side of the road to drive on!
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
Can i quote you in my sig with "The French don't even know what side of the road to drive on!" ?
I know it's out of topic - but that makes it even funnier.
According to some studies, it seems driving on the left side of the road generates less accident than driving on the right.
So Belgium has planned to change from driving on the right to driving on the left to reduce road death.
However, they fear it may to drastic a change and so plan to make it progressively.
Thirst first month, only the trucks will change, followed by the car one month later.
So Belgium has planned to change from driving on the right to driving on the left to reduce road death.
However, they fear it may to drastic a change and so plan to make it progressively.
Thirst first month, only the trucks will change, followed by the car one month later.
Aha, another national prejudice comes to the fore - the French attitude to the Belgians!
Not an attitude entirely confined to the French, though. One passage comes to mind:
[Heretic Cata] Naturally anything I post on the forum is quotable!
Not an attitude entirely confined to the French, though. One passage comes to mind:
The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy said:
[Heretic Cata] Naturally anything I post on the forum is quotable!
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
plot said:
And let's not forget that vs Switzerland moment a while back.
I should go look for a link - it was quite funny.
If we directed all our jokes toward the English, they would soon be overwhelmed... So we try to spread it on several people.
Link good hunters who kills just enough preys for their enjoyment, but keep a large enough population for reproduction.
And in the case of English, reproduction can indeed by a serious issue.
As the judge who asked the man in the courthouse "But how could you have raped a corpse ???" And the man answer "I thought it was an English woman".
I don't know why, but I have a distant feeling that we may have wander a bit to far from the original topic.
Stay focused gentlemen, stay focused!
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
It is quite educational though, for me up here in my corner of the world
, to see the mechanisms of bashing revealed like this. 
That's not bashing, that's wit fencing.It is quite educational though, for me up here in my corner of the world
And in the Olympics game, France has won 278 medals at fencing. Great-Britian only 24
El Justo
Deity
Steph,
it think that it is pretty irrellevant that france had been in control of quebec. it is the fact that the province of quebec is part of a sovereign nation. and for de gaulle to stick his nose into the affairs of a province of a sovereign nation is pretty pathetic and meddlesome imo.
iow, the point about my remark on the ownership of quebec is that it matters not who owned it in the past. the fact of the matter is that quebec had been a province of canada since the 1860s and for de gaulle to stir the pot like he did is a slap in the face of the canadian govt. if i was a lawmaker in ottawa, i'd have been pretty darn pissed over that.
wrt your native american commnent:
obviously, you're trying to throw a wrinkle into the argument. the context of what i wrote was that i wonder what the avg algerian would have thought about france considering their lands to be an "intergral part" of her empire. i'd say that they'd probably have preferred their own identity, not one associated w/ france. this is where i have a beef w/ france's mgmt of decolonization. if the the principle of the 'consent of the governed' is considered, then i am rather dubious wrt french intentions at this time. that imo is a double standard.
i don't see why fdr couldn't voice his opinion about decolonization. after all, the people of these lands were essentially opressed (for lack of a better term) and forced to live under the rule of their colonizers. and by 1962 - colonialism was clearly on its last breaths. again - quebec at this time was not a colony, her people were clearly not oppressed, and most importantly - quebec was part of a sovereign nation.
to compare algeria to quebec in the same vein is like comparing apples and oranges imo.
it think that it is pretty irrellevant that france had been in control of quebec. it is the fact that the province of quebec is part of a sovereign nation. and for de gaulle to stick his nose into the affairs of a province of a sovereign nation is pretty pathetic and meddlesome imo.
iow, the point about my remark on the ownership of quebec is that it matters not who owned it in the past. the fact of the matter is that quebec had been a province of canada since the 1860s and for de gaulle to stir the pot like he did is a slap in the face of the canadian govt. if i was a lawmaker in ottawa, i'd have been pretty darn pissed over that.
wrt your native american commnent:
obviously, you're trying to throw a wrinkle into the argument. the context of what i wrote was that i wonder what the avg algerian would have thought about france considering their lands to be an "intergral part" of her empire. i'd say that they'd probably have preferred their own identity, not one associated w/ france. this is where i have a beef w/ france's mgmt of decolonization. if the the principle of the 'consent of the governed' is considered, then i am rather dubious wrt french intentions at this time. that imo is a double standard.
i don't see why fdr couldn't voice his opinion about decolonization. after all, the people of these lands were essentially opressed (for lack of a better term) and forced to live under the rule of their colonizers. and by 1962 - colonialism was clearly on its last breaths. again - quebec at this time was not a colony, her people were clearly not oppressed, and most importantly - quebec was part of a sovereign nation.
to compare algeria to quebec in the same vein is like comparing apples and oranges imo.
El Justo,
I still don't understand why you make such a difference between Algeria and Quebec, on this ground. Wasn't Algeria a part of France, in the French views? Wasn't France a sovereign nation?
The Algerians were perhaps oppressed, but at least we had still left enough alive to protest loudly enough to be heard.
And what if the Quebec people would have liked to have their own idendity? Why can't De Gaulle voice something about it, while Roosevelt can do it for Algerians?
You are in shaky ground here I think.
1) France can say nothing about Quebec, because France oppressed the Algerian people. But Roosevelt, president of a country who killed almost all the natives living their before colonist come can say something...
2) American can speak about Algeria because Algerians wanted to be independant from France, a sovereign nation, but France can say nothing about the people of Quebec wanting their independance from Canada, because it's a foreign nation?
I still don't understand why you make such a difference between Algeria and Quebec, on this ground. Wasn't Algeria a part of France, in the French views? Wasn't France a sovereign nation?
The Algerians were perhaps oppressed, but at least we had still left enough alive to protest loudly enough to be heard.
And what if the Quebec people would have liked to have their own idendity? Why can't De Gaulle voice something about it, while Roosevelt can do it for Algerians?
You are in shaky ground here I think.
1) France can say nothing about Quebec, because France oppressed the Algerian people. But Roosevelt, president of a country who killed almost all the natives living their before colonist come can say something...
2) American can speak about Algeria because Algerians wanted to be independant from France, a sovereign nation, but France can say nothing about the people of Quebec wanting their independance from Canada, because it's a foreign nation?
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Perhaps the british failure at olympic fencing contrasted by the french olympic fencing sucess but military failure can be explained by us giving our soldiers guns? If our squadies still used the epee and the foil perhaps we would have similar sucess at the olympics
El Justo
Deity
Steph,
i'll have to politely disagree w/ you. i am not on shaky ground.
you are failing to see my point and it's becoming rather burdensome.
Quebec: she is not a colony. plain and simple. she is and had been part of the dominion of canada. and most importantly (and what yoiu clearly fail to see or acknowledge) is that she is part of the dominion on her own volition. iow - not by force and clearly under the premise of the 'consent of the governed' principle.
Algeria: a colony depsite you claiming it to be an "integral part" of france. this statement is very subjective although i respect your opinion on it but vociferously disagree.
you wrote "left enough alive" - i suppose you're referring to the extermination of the native americans. well - all i can say is: oh how nice
you're grabbing at straws here...
that's the thing! let the people of quebec decide! and de gaulle should've kept his trap shut! plain and simple!
roosevelt is imo able to freely voice his opinion b/c the people of algeria were being supressed against their will. what part of that do you not understand man? quebec - part of a sovereign nation and willingly. is that clear enough?
fdr did not kill native americans. sure his predecessors did but they learned that tactic fromt he english and french. plus - it was water under the bridge at that point. i'm talking about immediately after ww2, not the 17th through the 19th century.
refer to my statement about quebec above and it will directly answer your question regarding sovereignty.
i'll have to politely disagree w/ you. i am not on shaky ground.
you are failing to see my point and it's becoming rather burdensome.
Quebec: she is not a colony. plain and simple. she is and had been part of the dominion of canada. and most importantly (and what yoiu clearly fail to see or acknowledge) is that she is part of the dominion on her own volition. iow - not by force and clearly under the premise of the 'consent of the governed' principle.
Algeria: a colony depsite you claiming it to be an "integral part" of france. this statement is very subjective although i respect your opinion on it but vociferously disagree.
you wrote "left enough alive" - i suppose you're referring to the extermination of the native americans. well - all i can say is: oh how nice
you're grabbing at straws here...that's the thing! let the people of quebec decide! and de gaulle should've kept his trap shut! plain and simple!
roosevelt is imo able to freely voice his opinion b/c the people of algeria were being supressed against their will. what part of that do you not understand man? quebec - part of a sovereign nation and willingly. is that clear enough?
fdr did not kill native americans. sure his predecessors did but they learned that tactic fromt he english and french. plus - it was water under the bridge at that point. i'm talking about immediately after ww2, not the 17th through the 19th century.
refer to my statement about quebec above and it will directly answer your question regarding sovereignty.
France : 53 medals at shooting, Great Britain 94. It's a bit better, but it doesn't compensate for our overwhelming greatness at fencing compared to you.Perhaps the british failure at olympic fencing contrasted by the french olympic fencing sucess but military failure can be explained by us giving our soldiers guns? If our squadies still used the epee and the foil perhaps we would have similar sucess at the olympics
Well, English women do tend to go like that when they're too close to a Frenchman. I'm sure I needn't explain why in any detail.
Just to reiterate, by the way:
Enkidu Warrior said:
I think the typical English approach to this sort of thing is that of Flanders &
Swann's "Song of Patriotic Prejudice", which satirises patriotism and xenophobia by taking them to ridiculous extremes. It seems to me there's very little genuine dislike of the French among the British in general - the American anti-French sentiment of the past few years is indeed very different in tone and origin.
El Justo, what would you say if a Frenchman, in 1960, suggested that you should free Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming and give them back to the Sioux?
One word: awe. Our manlyhood leave them speechless and paralyzed in joyfull anticipation.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
Lets see the definition of a fence: a person who receives and disposes of stolen goods
France better than Britain at fencing? Yes, makes perfect sense to me.
OT hasnt de Gaulle been responsible for a lot of French bashing by the Brits since the war (France has no friends, only interests etc.).
I mean, denying us from entry into a club we didnt want to be a member of anyway is so rude.
France better than Britain at fencing? Yes, makes perfect sense to me.
OT hasnt de Gaulle been responsible for a lot of French bashing by the Brits since the war (France has no friends, only interests etc.).
I mean, denying us from entry into a club we didnt want to be a member of anyway is so rude.
Similar threads
