French-bashing - the historical origin?

[Wolfhart]

After having suffered yet another Hollywood history falsification together with a couple of friends, we started discussing why the French martiality are always belittled in Anglo-American media productions. There's often remarks about French being generally traitorous cowards (with questionable personal hygiene), and we can't help wonder why this notion is so widespread in the Anglo-American societies? Have they forgot all about how La Fayette helped secure American independence, or how the Napoleonic French conquered large parts of Europe (with USA as a minor ally) or how Verdun was held?

The obvious answer might be the WW2: the French army collapsed in 1940 because of bad leadership, nonexisting coordination of service branches, a defensive doctrine causing passivity, a rotten supply system and sub-standard training of the reserves, and some mistake that as cowardice.

There's also the Vichy state, a truly despicable political creature, but noone is blaming the Norwegians for what Quisling and his Hird did, or any other collaborators in other countries.

After WW2 there's Indochina where the French troops were defeated by the North Vietnamese, but so were the US troops later on.

There's also the French withdrawal from NATO cooperation in 1966 as a protest against the US dominance of the alliance, not easily forgiven by some.

What do you think caused the phenomena of French-bashing?

 

[REDY]

The French battled hard only twice - first time under small girl and second time under small man.

I think that main reason is their (gay) language and Americans got hate from English tradition.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Don't worry, the canadians take part of the bashing too ya know.
BLAME CANADA

Sorry - that song is stuck in my head.

It might just be the language; i dunno. But England & France have always (minus last century) been suspicious about eachother - and the english/american culture is dominating things in this whole globalisation thingy (at least in this part of the world).

And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them.

 

[Wolfhart]

The French battled hard only twice - first time under small girl and second time under small man.

Yep, that's a good joke, and understood as a joke by most people with basic history knowledge. What I find so ridiculous is that so many people actually seems to believe it to be true

Don't worry, the canadians take part of the bashing too ya know.
BLAME CANADA

Sorry - that song is stuck in my head.

It's a good song and an excellent movie and of course I include Canada among the Anglo-American societies.

I think that main reason is their (gay) language and Americans got hate from English tradition.

It might just be the language; i dunno. But England & France have always (minus last century) been suspicious about eachother - and the english/american culture is dominating things in this whole globalisation thingy (at least in this part of the world).

Odd, I find Italian and Norwegian to be much more gay languages than French, but I don't believe Italians and Norwegians to be traitorous and unwashed cowards just because of that.

The heritage thingy might be more of an explanation, but considering the great amount of French help to the young American republic during the war of independence (would there even be a USA without France?) and the good relations between those two nations all the way to WW2, in stark contrast to the open animosity between USA and Great Britain all the way to WW1, I find it hard to believe that such notions would have survived. Who gave the Americans the Statue of Liberty? I rather think it's a late 20th century prejudice.

And don't you think there are english jokes in france ?
Just search through steph's posts and find them.

Of course there are, but do many Frenchmen believe those jokes to be true, and does their movie and television industry repeat those jokes ad nauseam?

 

[Bugfatty300]

The heritage thingy might be more of an explanation, but considering the great amount of French help to the young American republic during the war of independence (would there even be a USA without France?) and the good relations between those two nations all the way to WW2 I find it hard to believe that such notions would have survived.

One thing you leave out is the fact that France turned against the US after the War of Independence. The reason war wasn't declared like in 1812, was the fact that the Royal Navy was on our side against the French privateer navy.

And the US didn't have any kind of lovable affair with France through out the 19th century. It wasn't until WWI that the two countries became "allies" of anysort.

The fact is that France and the US only had excellent relations in the first half of the last century.

And France doesn't have spectacular record of good foreign policy either. That accounts for alot of French bashing as well as American bashing.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Odd, I find Italian and Norwegian to be much more gay languages than French, but I don't believe Italians and Norwegians to be traitorous and unwashed cowards just because of that.

And here we find an intresting fact.

I think hungarian is a gay language - no i'm not kidding; you should hear the guy in charge of the magyar party in the parliament. So it's some sort of per country thing.

And it seems english ppl think french is a gay language. Add massive globalisation and we got everywhere in the media bashing the french.
Let's face it, almost all of the movies we see today are american or british.


But the french shouldn't feel alone in this one. Like Bugfatty said, the americans are next to them for the bashing. I mean, racism toward americans is practically legal.

 

[Wolfhart]

One thing you leave out is the fact that France turned against the US after the War of Independence. The reason war wasn't declared like in 1812, was the fact that the Royal Navy was on our side against the French privateer navy.

But on the other hand the French sold Louisiana to the USA thereby doubling the size of the latter, and the gratitude towards Royal Navy seems feeble indeed in 1812.

And the US didn't have any kind of lovable affair with France through out the 19th century. It wasn't until WWI that the two countries became "allies" of anysort.

I've never claimed them to be allies, merely on cordial terms with eachother, and I know that things sometimes were a bit strained between Napoleon III's France and USA. But I was under the impression that the French Republics generally had cordial relations with USA. And why shouldn't they; they were both suspicious bordering on paranoid against the Brits, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

The fact is that France and the US only had excellent relations in the first half of the last century.

That's not what I've learned and read, but I'm happy to learn more about your view of this.

And France doesn't have spectacular record of good foreign policy either. That accounts for alot of French bashing as well as American bashing.

Is there any country in the world that have an acceptable record of good foreign policy? Liechtenstein perhaps... That can't explain this prejudice about French cowardice.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

After having suffered yet another Hollywood history falsification together with a couple of friends, we started discussing why the French martiality are always belittled in Anglo-American media productions. There's often remarks about French being generally traitorous cowards (with questionable personal hygiene), and we can't help wonder why this notion is so widespread in the Anglo-American societies? Have they forgot all about how La Fayette helped secure American independence, or how the Napoleonic French conquered large parts of Europe (with USA as a minor ally) or how Verdun was held?

The obvious answer might be the WW2: the French army collapsed in 1940 because of bad leadership, nonexisting coordination of service branches, a defensive doctrine causing passivity, a rotten supply system and sub-standard training of the reserves, and some mistake that as cowardice.

There's also the Vichy state, a truly despicable political creature, but noone is blaming the Norwegians for what Quisling and his Hird did, or any other collaborators in other countries.

After WW2 there's Indochina where the French troops were defeated by the North Vietnamese, but so were the US troops later on.

There's also the French withdrawal from NATO cooperation in 1966 as a protest against the US dominance of the alliance, not easily forgiven by some.

What do you think caused the phenomena of French-bashing?

First of all, France and England were traditional enemies for several centuries, and you generally don't play up the courage of your enemies. America is an offshoot of England, so we inherited the whole anti-French sentiment. Sure we were glad Laffeyette helped us out, but we also know that with the exception of Lafeyette and a few others, the French helped us because they wanted to cause trouble for England, not out of love for America or our cause. Even though the French fought well in the Napoleonic wars, they were led by a foreigner, and were eventually defeated anyway. France's military history from there is even less auspicious. They got smashed in the Franco-Prussian war. Then they incompetently fought WWI(though to be fair, all sides in WWI were pretty poor in the tactics and preparation department), but the end result was Britain and America bailing the French out. We all know how miserably the French performed in WWII. Plus, while the French army was physically defeated by the Vietnamese, American soldiers won every battle in the war, the reason we lost the war is because of political pressure at home.

Now lets talk about other nations reputations: Germany is regarded as a nation of murderous, psychotic warmongers because even though they lost both world wars, they almost won them both, plus the German language is just menacing to listen to while French sounds a bit effeminate to our ears. Most Americans probably couldn't find Norway on a map, and even if they could, their first thought would be about vikings, not Quisling. For Italy, people tend to remember the Romans. Britain, people think of them stoically fighting through the blitz.

 

[Wolfhart]

But the french shouldn't feel alone in this one. Like Bugfatty said, the americans are next to them for the bashing. I mean, racism toward americans is practically legal.

Touché! as the 'traitorous coward' would say. Yep, of course Yankee-bashing is rampant too, and one very common stereotype is the ignorant American who when looking at a map thinks Russia is USA because it's the largest. If able to discern between European countries at all he thinks Sweden is the country in the Alps with yodeling cheeses and clocks, while Switzerland is the communist state with polar bears on the streets in wintertime and nude girls in the summertime.
But most people don't usually believe this to be true, even though Jay Leno does a good job in reinforcing this stereotype with his Jaywalkers , and it's not common to see this on European movies or TV shows. So my original question stands.

 

[GinandTonic]

There is a fine tradition of frog-rosbeef baiting. Sometimes in war, but more often simply bause we have always been geographically close and evenly matched. Generally these days this takes the manner of a friend who supports the towns other team - there is a need to constantly bait them, but more often than not without any real venom.

The Americans seem to have inherited this baiting but to take it seriously.

Oh, and for the Brits the Italians are the but of the bad soldier jokes.

 

[Wolfhart]

First of all, France and England were traditional enemies for several centuries, and you generally don't play up the courage of your enemies. America is an offshoot of England, so we inherited the whole anti-French sentiment. Sure we were glad Laffeyette helped us out, but we also know that with the exception of Lafeyette and a few others, the French helped us because they wanted to cause trouble for England, not out of love for America or our cause. Even though the French fought well in the Napoleonic wars, they were led by a foreigner, and were eventually defeated anyway. France's military history from there is even less auspicious. They got smashed in the Franco-Prussian war. Then they incompetently fought WWI(though to be fair, all sides in WWI were pretty poor in the tactics and preparation department), but the end result was Britain and America bailing the French out. We all know how miserably the French performed in WWII. Plus, while the French army was physically defeated by the Vietnamese, American soldiers won every battle in the war, the reason we lost the war is because of political pressure at home.

The question was if French generally are traitorous cowards. La Fayette certainly wasn't, and the French troops that fought in North America performed well in all accounts I have read. La Grande Armée might have been led by a Corsican, but he didn't do the fighting himself, right? 'Britain and America bailing the French out' of WW1 is one of those mythical beliefs that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The French soldiers showed on most occasions exemplary courage and élan (again: Verdun!), and reinforced the Brits on several occasions when the latter wavered. The Americans had to taught to fight a modern war by French and British officers. During the Entente offensive in 1918 the US were still the junior partner and the war would most surely be won also without them; it was a question of time by then.
WW2; yep the French performed miserably in the summer of 1940! Look at what Free French troops performed later on, like Leclerc's men in North Africa.
Indochina; Dien Bien Phu was a defeat, but does anyone really question the bravery and martial prowess the French Paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires showed there?
And here we get to my point; your reasoning seems to be that if you win you're brave, if you're defeated you're a coward. I disagree with this.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I see the claims about french cowardice to be overblown and probably a more recent public relations thing.

The latest French-bashing is obviously to score political points because nobody my age or younger gets where the stereotype came from. It's like saying "people with blond hair are stupid". You are doing it to make yourself feel better, maybe because of the stereotype "blonds have more fun". I'm not so sure about either one.

 

[Yeeek]

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!
Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-niggets.

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

 

[Verbose]

Some of it must have to do with how "British" in the 18th c. came to be defined as "not French". It was a good way of finding common ground between English and Scots in this still relatively new union, depsite the Scots being old allies of France

The French otoh have never defined themselves as "not English" in the same way. There's always been a strong streak of Anglophilia among the French elite, occasional snide remarks aside. The British seem more grudging in their respect for French accomplishments.

It seems to have been a received idea in the Americas, at least to the extent the citizens of the new republic still regarded themselves as "Anglosaxons".

As for the prestige of the French military, I think we have to factor in what an extraordinary reputation as warriors the French acquired in the Napoleonic wars. The French reputation for military prowess can be compared to the German one today. France lost the Napoleonic wars but went down fighting with such élan for a century it was implicitly assumed they were the masters of land warfare. (The Brits can stick to their seas.)Compare that to the Germans. You hear no German surrender jokes, and they got the snot kicked out of them twice in the 20th c. But just like France in the 19th c. they way they lost made their reputation.

So the French reputation had a very long way to fall, beginning with the war of 1870-71 (where the empire of Napoleon III was already considered "the New Babylon" in Britain), to make a very rough landing in 1940.

 

[Verbose]

if you're defeated you're a coward.

Yes, the suspiscion is that some Americans, and Brits for that matter, assume that military success is a decent measure of moral fortitude and righteousness.

 

[GinandTonic]

The French otoh have never defined themselves as "not English" in the same way. There's always been a strong streak of Anglophilia among the French elite, occasional snide remarks aside. The British seem more grudging in their respect for French accomplishments.

There is a quote on anglo-french relations to the effect that the elites of both countries love each other, while the common men despise each other.

Cann't remember who it was and quotes are a hassle to attribute online.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

The question was if French generally are traitorous cowards. La Fayette certainly wasn't, and the French troops that fought in North America performed well in all accounts I have read. La Grande Armée might have been led by a Corsican, but he didn't do the fighting himself, right? 'Britain and America bailing the French out' of WW1 is one of those mythical beliefs that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The French soldiers showed on most occasions exemplary courage and élan (again: Verdun!), and reinforced the Brits on several occasions when the latter wavered. The Americans had to taught to fight a modern war by French and British officers. During the Entente offensive in 1918 the US were still the junior partner and the war would most surely be won also without them; it was a question of time by then.

Is that why the French army was on the verge of mutiny by the time we got there? Nah, I think that if America hadn't intervened, WWI would have probably ended diplomatically in Germany's favour.

WW2; yep the French performed miserably in the summer of 1940! Look at what Free French troops performed later on, like Leclerc's men in North Africa.

I don't know what else to call having 2/3 of your homeland occupied, the rest turned into a puppet state, and losing 1/3 of your army in the frist real battle with your enemy. There is also the fact that without British and American help, the Free French would have been simply wiped out along with the rest of the French army. That sounds like pretty miserable perfomance to me.

Indochina; Dien Bien Phu was a defeat, but does anyone really question the bravery and martial prowess the French Paratroopers and Foreign Legionnaires showed there?

Of course the foreign legionnaires were brave, they are not French. Might be why they are called Foreign.

And here we get to my point; your reasoning seems to be that if you win you're brave, if you're defeated you're a coward. I disagree with this.

Not necessarily. I consider the Germans were brave, but they lost the war. Besides, the stereotype is not just that the French are cowardly. The full stereotype is that the French are either cowardly, or incompetent, often both. But 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.

 

[Plotinus]

And it seems english ppl think french is a gay language.

What, so anti-French sentiment is really homophobia in disguise? So that's perfectly all right then...

Why on earth would anyone think French is a "gay" language? Surely the stereotype of the French is of incredibly virile romantic lovers, who seduce women by murmuring sweet nothings in their amazingly romantic and seductive language. Not that it ever works for me - maybe my French accent is too atrocious. Cue bad joke: "Je t'adore," he whispered passionately in her ear; "Shut it yourself!" she yelled back at him.

Seriously, the reason the French and the English traditionally hate each other is the simple fact that they're next door to each other, plus of course their tendency to invade, conquer, or simply migrate to each other's countries. As for why Americans don't like the French, I assume it's primarily to do with the French opposition in the UN to Bush's policies in the past few years. However, perhaps it's also connected to the fact that one of the stereotypes of the French is as very cultured, intelligent, sophisticated, and generally too clever by half. Since this is the opposite of the prevailing stereotype of Americans it's no wonder they don't like each other...

Also, don't forget the French love/hate affair with America too. France is full of American influence - I remember when I first visited America I thought it looked just like France. Yet at the same time they hate the creeping influence of American English into their language and do their best to stop it. That vaguely hypocritical behaviour ("We'll buy your Big Macs but we won't speak to you in your language even though we speak it perfectly") is pretty annoying.

Germany is regarded as a nation of murderous, psychotic warmongers because even though they lost both world wars, they almost won them both, plus the German language is just menacing to listen to while French sounds a bit effeminate to our ears. Most Americans probably couldn't find Norway on a map, and even if they could, their first thought would be about vikings, not Quisling. For Italy, people tend to remember the Romans. Britain, people think of them stoically fighting through the blitz.

I think this sums it up perfectly. I don't know if you're American, but this summarises the way Americans view the world: primarily in military terms. The American obsession with temporal power, understood mainly in a military way, means they tend to evaluate other countries on the basis of their most famous wars or recent military actions! Britain and Germany make them think of WWII, Scandinavia makes them think of Vikings, etc... The French haven't done well in wars in the past century or two, so Americans don't think much of them. The fact that (a) they did pretty well in wars before then, and (b) this is a totally insane way of judging countries in the first place doesn't seem to make much difference.

 

[Warman17]

But on the other hand the French sold Louisiana to the USA thereby doubling the size of the latter, and the gratitude towards Royal Navy seems feeble indeed in 1812.

I've never claimed them to be allies, merely on cordial terms with eachother, and I know that things sometimes were a bit strained between Napoleon III's France and USA. But I was under the impression that the French Republics generally had cordial relations with USA. And why shouldn't they; they were both suspicious bordering on paranoid against the Brits, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

The USA had an undeclared war with Fracne 1798-1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi_War). Lousiana wasn't a move of friendship on behalf of Napoleon, just a means of getting money and getting rid of territory he didn't want to spend resources on defending (especially after losing Haiti).

France and Britain alike weren't well liked prior to 1812. After the war though the US and Britain began to get along much better compared to the US and France. Britain was our unofficial muscle which upheld the Monroe Doctrine until the 20th century when we develped our own powerful sea-going fleet. Britain did this because it was an unofficial way for them to keep the status quo in the Americas, one where they were getting rich off the caribbean and held power in Canada. The de-militarization of the Great Lakes in the 1840s greatly symbolized how well the US and UK got along.

Americans have picked their fellow english-speaking companions over the pond over France since thw War of 1812.

 

[Nobody]

It comes from france getting beaten in world war two, do you thing the american army of 1940 could have defended the french boader against the germany army at the time?