Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

General accusations on the French Way of Life

Personally, I don't think this listing is insulting, but I think it is :

• Not encyclopedic if there are no explanation about the source of those alliterations,
• Not neutral if there are no explanation about why it is « cliché » and not « reality ».

Aoineko 08:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes I am agree with you, why bring back the conversations of the bar of the corner, if it is only for saying that there are people who have feelings anti-anything

We're not talking of people discussing "bars around the corner" but of people writing such crud in press articles. David.Monniaux 10:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

in which newspapers? (with scadale, policies, humorous?) Which people?

Which mediums? Which political tendencies?

I have tried to address the issue of NPOV and cliche. As for citations, they have largely been moved to the bottom of the page. Sam [Spade] 09:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you overdid it. I mean, it's obvious that the American view of France focuses enormously on the Left Bank intellectual lifestyle (a tiny minority). David.Monniaux 10:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is not really adding "some think that while others think that" "a lot of people consider" or similar sentences. A good way to preserve accuracy and factual comments is to rely on facts.

Style, presentation and language are important. Facts alone won't necessarily magically result in NPOV. Where you introduce them, which facts you choose to present (yes we should present as much as relevant, but some contributors may choose not to, then claim NPOV) and how you word the facts. Zoney 11:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• French men are largely homosexual/bisexual. (According to surveys American's male homosexual incidence is bigger than in French. This allegation may have arisen from the fact there are no laws against sodomy in France. Alternatively, it may have arisen because of generalizations from the artistic or intellectual lifestyle.)

Please, provide the reference for these surveys (accurate percentages of opinion may be worth). Also provide a reference (or a citation) for the "this allegation may have arisen...". The consequences of no sodomy law implies more homosexuals does not appear obvious to me, so it would be interesting to know who suggested it might be an explanation. Also, please provide support for the relation more artistic life -> more homosexual and mostly provide support of who claims that. Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 10:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Such implications were not implied. On the other hand, the absence of sodomy laws enables homosexuals to be more visible. Also, the artistic or intellectual field is traditionally more tolerant of sexually free lifestyles than other fields, like politics. The prevalence of visible homosexuals may be misunderstood as general prevalence of homosexuals, which of course ignores the fact that in repressive contexts, homosexuals will simply exist, hidden.

But, you're right: I don't thing that this is a significant cliché. While I've seen WWII allusions and clichés on cafés, cigarettes and no baths regularly, I've seldom seen stuff about homosexuals.David.Monniaux 11:32, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe it was "foireux"... but not entirely. But that is a cliche I never really heard...

I'm not understanding the focus on WWII? Why such emphasis on this? And as far as homosexuality/sexual liberalism, that is not really in question, is it? You yourselves say that even if numbers are lower (I also question these numbers) that French society is more open to this, legally in particular. This has changed since the 60's, much less WWII, but even in the time of the founding of the United States Benjamin Franklin enjoyed the more liberal sexual atmosphere of France. I have already supplied two citations for this particular (sexual accusations), one of which was moved to the external links section. Sam[Spade] 12:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

WWII was not about the homosexuals, but about the alleged "weakness" of France ("rolled over when the Germans came"). Also, WWII was the last time when there was a very large American presence on French soil (the later NATO bases were much smaller). I suspect that the thing about cleanliness etc... was a reaction towards WWII and post-WWII life, where staples such as soap were rationed and society was impoverished (which translated into: people did not have enough money for amenities such as good in-hous plumbing). Americans often do not imagine the drag and cost of WWI and WWII, which took decades to compensate.

Could you point at the relevant links for the survey and citations ?

For americans surveys (4.9~5.9%), see Homosexuality#Prevalence_of_homosexuality. For the French one, I founded 4.1% in a survey from Agence nationale de recherches sur le sida (National agence for research on AIDS) done in 1992 on 20.000 people. Aoineko 13:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

France : 4.1 compared to US 4.9-5.9 does not seem to go in the right direction...

What is the « right » direction ? Aoineko 02:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

tu ne m'a pas comprise :-) L'article indiquait que les sondages montraient une plus grande prévalence de l'homosexualité en France, alors que tes chiffres semblent indiquer le contraire. Ou est l'erreur ? ant

You must understand anthere, these are jokes. They are not neccesarilly rooted in fact, but rather focus on that which will amuse and offend. Of course we may research and understand the facts involved, but one fact in addition is that many people tell these jokes and laugh. This is of some small importance, and encyclopedic IMO, helping those who do not have a working knowledge of this a chance to understand this cultural complexity. Sam [Spade] 17:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The real basis of US Francophobia

I had hoped to stay out of this article, but it goes on at length scraping for often absurd "reasons" that there is anti-French sentiment in the U.S.

This article (and the one on anti-Americanism) frankly upsets me. First, it is a "kitchen sink" article straining to find anti-French sentiment in the US, without much sense of reality or proportion. This (and its counter-article) should actually be embarassing to the posters because so much of it is peripheral to reality, or ("pardon my French," which is an old US expression): merde. I see people like Anthere getting upset about US attitudes that aren't widely held, or more important, held with any significant cultural depth. In essence, this is another US-bashing article, because much of it says, in essence: "look how stupid and bigoted Americans are, to have these absurd ideas."

I was born right after WWII and I have had a lot of European friends and acquaintances for various reasons, including having relatives in England and Germany. For whatever reason, at least perhaps until after the fall of the Soviet Union (still?) Europeans seem much more actively aware of feelings and attitudes toward other countries and their people in an everyday setting than Americans do. Maybe part of that is reaction to meeting people from the US (so causing them to argue over US issues), but this is what I have seen a lot of, even speaking to friends of relatives.

In terms of negative feelings active today in the US, noone (except for your talk show entertainer or variety comedian maybe) cares whether there are more, fewer or any homosexuals at all in France, for example. If this attitude exists, it is mostly dying with the WWII generation. But insofar as WWII is concerned, it did play a large part in modern 'political anti-French sentiment.

The French in WWII and immediately after had great press in the US. The French were seen as victims of German aggression and, despite America's huge German ethnic population, Germany was already not popular as a result of WWI. It was common to talk about the "Brave French Resistance," movies like Casablanca were a typical attitude: "the brave and clever French vs. the brutal and stupid Nazis." Charles deGaulle was considered a hero of resistance.

It took a while, but after WWII doubts began to creep in, spearheaded by the same deGaulle, who began to steer a separate course in what seemed ingratitude. Then the image of French nobility in WWII befan to be chipped at, just as Abu Ghraib hurts America's image. Maurice Chavalier and Edith Piaf flourishing in Nazi-occupied Paris, French authorities turning over Jewish families to the Nazis where they only asked for adults, "The Sorrow and the Pity," "The Betrayal at Dunkirk." Culturally, Americans see French people who have held themselves superior to America for its presumed racism ("it doesn't matter whether you are black or white, if you are French") but we hear current stories of synagogue attacks, of French Jews who fear to stay in their own country because of rising anti-Semitism.

And as to more recent events, there is an abiding attitude in America that is larger than just France, it goes like this: "We didn't want to get involved in Europe's Wars, but we were told it was the right thing, and we eventually did. After WWII, we formed mutual alliances where we were all supposed to help each other out. Then the U.S. is significantly attacked on its own soil and France doesn't want to participate in actions the US believes are as necessary as WWI or WWII. OK, France is a sovereign country, we can deal with that. But we never expected France to openly obstruct us when we are investing our own blood and our own treasure. Or to put it briefly, 'we were there for you, but when we need you, you don't simply turn away, you try to thwart us.' "

As I said, negative feelings toward France are not front and center in US consciousness, but when people do feel negative, it is for reasons like these, not stupid beliefs that Frenchmen spend their time in bed with people of unknown gender, wearing dirty shirts and eating parts of amphibious creatures. Looking for these things is "not seeing the forest for the trees." Cecropia | Talk 18:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The above is largely correct, particularly for the majority of americans. But there is a minority which always had anti-french sentiments, and from whom the more personal accusations come, and who coined such slurs as "dirty french" and "french frogs". The pre-WWII, even pre-US origins of this are ignored within the article, which in reality only focuses on post-9/11 sentiments specifically, w some regard to opinions formed during WWII. Where the confusion sets in is where people who are annoyed w france due to 9/11 borrow from stereotypes both from the WWII era, as well as the undercurrent (held by quite a small minority I agree) of anti-franco sentiment which has always been their, for many centuries before the US was even discovered. I feel this deserves more focus. Sam [Spade] 20:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has managed to offend the French and the Americans. Meelar 20:21, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The above is largely correct: the root of the sometimes intense anti-French feelings is not in "cultural" stuff. I think, however, that it's far easier to talk disparagingly of foreign countries if you can show that "they're different" or hint at some "moral inferiority". Little things that sound pointless (the café myth, for instance) are used to build a kind of background: "hey, the French are not going to help us in Iraq, but what else could be expect of a bunch of lazybones that spend their time idling in their socialist country". Of course, a sentence like the preceding one will not be written in the polite press, but I've definitely seen some editorializing that had the same ideas.

In short: I think that the cultural jokes are not neutral and they are used to install a climate of patronizing condescendance which may then bias the reception of more serious issues. David.Monniaux 08:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like to state that what mostly irritates me are not the comments themselves. It is that I know quite a few american people, who I highly respect and sometimes love very much, who have a bad feeling toward France. I consider these people bright, and whether I agree with the reality of the base of these beliefs they have, I can't ignore their sentiments. I *know* they feel a certain way, which is not positive, toward my nation and the people who make it. I regret it. But it does not always mean they feel that way toward me, so I am not *personaly* offended. However, I know these people are bright, and I know they do not have these feelings for stupid reasons such as the fact we eat frogs or that we don't shave. I would like to understand why they feel that way. And frankly, this article is insulting their intelligence and it is not explaining me much of the reason they have these feelings. In short, it is offensive and useless. Mostly SweetLittleFluffyThing 21:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The distinction Cecropia makes, between the feelings themselves, and the words by which they are manifested, is probably the key to making a reasonable article. It's not that (some) Americans hate the French because the French are "garlicky frogeaters", but rather that they choose to use those words as a way of offending the French because of their anti-French sentiments. The reasons for the sentiments are different from the reasons the particular words are chosen, and the truth (or not) of the words is largely irrelevant to a discussion of the causes of the sentiment. Analogously, only the most credulous would believe the French hate Americans because they are "cowboys": rather, they call American "cowboys" in order to offend, because of their resentment. Their "pleasure" (or at any rate their mild frisson) comes from indicating that a group of people has so offended you that you no longer need to be careful about the language you use in reference to them, and the language is used precisely for the purpose of indicating to them that you no longer care if they are offended or not: their opinion no longer matters to you (which will quite naturally offend them). - Nunh-huh 21:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Nunh-huh. David would say it better than I, but it is our feeling that right now, some words are used to talk about us, some comments are made, that would raise uproar if they were used to describe other nations than France. The words have little meaning in themselves, their use only is important. The use of the word show that it does not matter if they could offend. SweetLittleFluffyThing 21:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Fluff, we're "birds of a feather," I feel that way about complaints in the anti-Americanism article that the US has "In God We Trust" on its currency. These things do not a theocracy make. But Americans now eat many things they would never have thought of 30 years ago. You can get Frog's Legs (since about 1965) at Nathan's, the hot dog place in Coney Island. Americans now try all kinds of Asian food and Sushi restaurants are everywhere. I grew up eating raw fish (Danish or Jewish-style herring, when I could get it, not to mention clams and oysters) but most Americans were horrified by the idea.

Now regular working-class types down raw fish. But please don't be insulted by silly food complaints. Mopst of the best restaurants in the US are French, helped along by all the French ex-pats who fled the Nazis.

Much of the world thinks that the difference between their cuisine and other countries' is that "mine is edible, yours isn't." A true story: an Irish-American friend of mine once tried to "prove" to me what barbarians (his word) the English are: "They eat FISH for breakfast." I didn't share with him that I love my broiled kippers, and poach Black Cod in milk. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Should I confess that it is in USA that I ate jellyfish for the first (and only) time of my life... :-) ant

I didn't know jellyfish were edible? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Me neither, but why not ? The cook was a chinese american. The food itself is very bland and a bit chewy (reasonably). As often, the sauce makes the difference :-) It was a bit spicy. I liked it. SweetLittleFluffyThing

I for my part will admit to eating smelly cheeses (Roquefort cheese for example) and to being about to purchase a French press coffee maker [1] :) Sam [Spade] 02:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Mon dieu! I love French cheese. And French butter. If only those French knew that they could bring America to its knees by cutting off those staples. (I hope no French people are listening, are they?) -- Cecropia | Talk 03:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Noted. ant

I doubt that anti-Semitism is more widespread in France than in the US. And everyone supported the US when it was attacked, even though it refused to negotiate the overturning of Bin Laden with the Taliban, which had gotten CIA support for many years. Even though every one knew that the US had decided to go for the war before the UN had discussed the issue. And even though it became obvious rather soon that the US ignored the human rights of its prisoners in Guantanamo. Only when torture finally could not be denied any longer given the photos from Abu Ghraib did a major outcry happen, no matter that human rights groups had protested for a long time. What the majority of Europeans could not stand was when the US government produced faked evidence of weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council and illegally attacked a country that had no links to 9/11 terrorists. None of those terrorist was from Iraq or even Afghanistan. And then Bush produced another excuse, "spreading democracy in the Middle East", an attempt his father had not even tried to make in Kuwait when the chances were best. And many of the "Coalition of the Willing" countries are far from anything that could be called democratic.
It was outrageous how France was singled out as the evil nation that had denied Bush a UN fig leaf resolution for his war. There was no chance for that resolution anyway, and apparently many from the US just went after the French because it is easier to provide the public a single scapegoat, especially if you want to pretend that otherwise you have wide support, and there already were prejudices before. Also the French have a veto right, so it was more useful to defame them than the Germans, Austrians, Belgians, Greeks, Swiss or Luxembourgers, who were equally opposed to the war, for example. When I spoke to a fellow student from Britain who had done an internship in Blair's office I was appalled how propaganda even got through to intellectuals. And while Germans students regularly get beaten up in Britain because their grandparents might have been Nazis I could not believe how now our neighbours got under attack while the German position was simply ignored. I have never seen anything in German or French media similar to Murdoch's Sun picturing Jacques Chirac as a worm on the front page. And that is not because we only have high quality media. Meanwhile in the US Murdoch spread the same rubbish in his New York Post and with Fox TV. But even usually serious people joined him: The US Congress decided to rename French fries to "freedom fries", the New York Times and International Herald Tribune stated that "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", and the Wall Street Journal called Chirac "a balding Joan of Arc in drag" ("The Rat that Roared": Christopher Hitchens). That indeed "raised uproar", Anthere. Get-back-world-respect 21:25, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

I removed the cultural material, which should go elsewhere if it deserves an article at all, and rephrased the introduction to make this article focus on foreign affairs.

If anyone wishes to re-add the cultural material, work should be done to make it more balanced and to provide context. The U.S. is a big place and if you look hard enough, you can find people who hate just about any public figure, act of congress, foreign state, and so on. The fact that the Simpsons tv show panned French culture should be considered in light of the fact that the Simpsons tv show has similarly panned many homegrown cultural institutions. In any case, I think we could do without repeating the gratuitious name-calling previously present in the article. Late night TV and congressman sound bites do not define American culture (God forbid). UninvitedCompany 22:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany 22:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I reverted, not to be difficult, but because their was no concensus to remove that section. Perhaps it needs more references (I've already supplied many times what is found in similar articles...) or some fine tuning, but I don't agree w large deletions of content. Sam [Spade] 23:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on keeping it at all either. ant

I don't believe that references are the issue. The content is simply inappropriate--certainly in an article about foreign affairs. I believe that, as it stands, it oversteps a certain boundary between describing racism and engaging in it. UninvitedCompany 23:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I understand the allegation, but I don't agree w it. Have you seen Anti-American sentiment, Anti-gay slogan, List of ethnic slurs etc...? Do you have similar objections to them? What about Nigger or Fag? Sam [Spade] 23:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a project has certain poor articles. The presence of other poor articles does not justify making this article equally poor. It is possible to write about racism or nationalism in a detached way without being PC. One key is to include only material where the informative value exceeds the inflammatory effect. In a general-purpose, international project like this, that bar should be set high. I believe much of the material in the article fails the test. UninvitedCompany

This article is about anti-French sentiment, why do you think it is about foreign affairs? The anti-French sentiment could have its origin only in foreign affairs, but it is not proven. Marc Mongenet 02:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The first two-thirds of the article talk mainly about foreign affairs. Then we have the cultural material at the end. They don't belong together. UninvitedCompany

I agree with you, they don't belong very well together. But if something must be deleted, then it is the "foreign affairs" part, because it is already (better) described in other (historic) articles. I think that the cultural part, notably the list of allegations, is original and very important content. Here is an example, that I hope will show you why I think so. Yesterday France finished a very high motorway bridge (the Millau bridge) to the Mediterranean sea. And I read on Slashdot the following joke: Why did they build this bridge, that looks like a perfectly nice valley down there, easy to push a road through... Because the german army hates to march up and down hills. Had I read this article ten years ago, before knowing some bits of american culture, I would have think about the common French clichés about germans: they are fat sausage tourists going en masse to the sea every summer. And the joke wouldn't have made a lot of sense. In fact, you would have a very hard time finding jokes in French about the Nazi invasion. In some countries, it is just not a suitable subject for jokes. Marc Mongenet 02:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, I think that you cannot explain how the foreign policy of a country A with respect to another country B is accepted and condoned by the citizenship of A without explaining some of the stereotypes and ideas that the citizenship of A has against the citizenship of B.

This is a well known fact, and in times of war it was common practice, even among "developed" nations, to present the other sides as some kind of bloodthirsty tyrants.

Colonial wars were justified by the prejudice of the citizens of the colonizing country with respect to the natives. For instance, prejudice like "they don't know how to organize themselves, they don't know how to run a business" has been used to justify that colonialists run the businesses and order the natives around.

So I find it fairly relevant to include a section on the cultural underpinning of this policy. I may even add that I think that cultural prejudice is carefully reinforced by people who have an advantage in this prejudice for pushing their agenda. David.Monniaux 16:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Alleged moral weaknesses

What about this more focused list (ie without analysis)?

• France has never had a military victory. Focusing on wars after World War I.
• France is a cowardly country that chronically prefers surrendering rather than to fight. Alluding to France's invasion by Nazi Germany in World War II.
• The French are ungrateful to the United States. Alluding to France's liberation with US help.

Marc Mongenet 03:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest it's better with a one-line analysis! Otherwise it looks like you're presenting fact! E.G. France is a cowardly country that chronically prefers surrendering rather than to fight. Alluding to France's invasion by Nazi Germany in World War II. is sort of suggesting it's a valid slur! Zoney 09:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't like "Focusing on wars after World War I" as that is not what is ment (the joke makers say France didn't win WWI, USA did), and I think that rebuttels should be seperate from the listing, but I do think it would be appropriate to have a rebuttels section just following. Perhaps the format of providing a list is what is most bothersome? Maybe if we edited the list into a couple of paragraphs it would be more acceptable? Sam [Spade] 12:08, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes - you may have hit the nail on the head there - I suspect the list format is indeed the main problem! Zoney 13:24, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I like it this way... :( I will accept this compromise however, so long as no content is lost. Sam [Spade] 17:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)