American anti-French sentiments...

[PeppermintRoo]

I came across this blog just now, and was interested and ammused by what it had to say:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/13/11 3845.php

I certainly can't speak for the whole US, but where I'm from it seems that an anti-French sentiment is a rather popular thing. People are quick to make jabs about their military defeats and alleged sense of elliteism, but this blog is the first actual argument I've come across that tries to support an anti-French sentiment.

I guess I'm posting this for multiple reasons/questions:

-What're your thoughts on that blog (and/or the book, if by chance you've read it?)
-Do other Americans sense a strong anti-French sentiment? (Let's not forget "Freedom Fries.")
-Do patrons of other countries notice an anti-French sentiment?
-Does anyone feel that the anti-French sentiment is justified?
-Anyone think it's unjustified?

Personally, I don't know enough on the matter to have a truly sound opinion. But I do take quite an ammusment by that blog's closing statement.

[Tomsan]

At 1/2/07 04:08 AM, PeppermintRoo wrote: I came across this blog just now, and was interested and ammused by what it had to say:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/13/11 3845.php

I certainly can't speak for the whole US, but where I'm from it seems that an anti-French sentiment is a rather popular thing. People are quick to make jabs about their military defeats and alleged sense of elliteism, but this blog is the first actual argument I've come across that tries to support an anti-French sentiment.

I guess I'm posting this for multiple reasons/questions:

-What're your thoughts on that blog (and/or the book, if by chance you've read it?)
-Do other Americans sense a strong anti-French sentiment? (Let's not forget "Freedom Fries.")
-Do patrons of other countries notice an anti-French sentiment?
-Does anyone feel that the anti-French sentiment is justified?
-Anyone think it's unjustified?

Personally, I don't know enough on the matter to have a truly sound opinion. But I do take quite an ammusment by that blog's closing statement.

I dont see much strong argumentations in the blog. Sure there are examples of bad french behaviour, but every nation has a dark history. Why not leave that how it is.
another misconception is that most americans think they "saved" our asses in WII. I will not denie we would have lost the war without you, and you were of great assistence, but lets not forget the only reason that you came to our aid was because Japan attacked pearl harbor and Hitler declared war on the US!!!!! You had to go to war in europe otherwise the war would eventually have come to you.
about the relationship with france I cant really say anything inttelegent, except that I know they deteste you, because of the american rudeness. they see you all as rednecks, hillbillies, unsufisticated people. The french have a rich history and they think that they are more sufficticated. In a sence this is true, but it totally depends on the way you classifie the word. the french do just that thing people tend to classifie as suffisticated. Like drinking wine, making art (I once read somewhere most art comes from france) making poetry, making haute coutoure, parfume etc etc etc... they feel the americans only want one thing and that is getting rich, which is pretty ordinair.

-What're your thoughts on that blog (and/or the book, if by chance you've read it?)

No I didnt feel the blog was informative, very much biased and although I believe he red alot on the topic (I didnt) he confined himself to some examples, doesnt really pursuee me. btw america didnt even had a war with france did they?

-Do patrons of other countries notice an anti-French sentiment?

The frence eliteness is know everywhere ofcourse and that they just are to stubbern to learn another langues makes that picture even greater, but I dont really hold a grunch against them. I think the germans do more

-Does anyone feel that the anti-French sentiment is justified?

No

-Anyone think it's unjustified?

yes

People are quick to make jabs about their military defeats

what military defeats? the WWII? because thats kinda logicall, the french went for an economic state after WWI they didnt invest money in there military because they didnt dream of germany trying it again. A wrong choice maybe, but the more noble one

[swayside]

So you're saying that WWII doesn't count because France wasn't ready? I'm kind of predisposed to the line of thought that says that a loss is a loss regardless of circumstances even if they are unfair.

Also, I don't have too much of a base of research to whole-heartedly support or attack the French, but I do know of a few losses:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

-- http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.h tml

[tawc]

I don't understand why americans hate france, The way I see it is that france is americas first and greatest ally, If it wasn't for the french you would most likely still of been part of the British empire maybe even upto WW1 (allthough I doubt it as america was such a huge country in terms of people compared to canada an australia)
I expect alot of the dislike was probably brought with you from Britain and the rest of the angloshere, as France are historically Britains greatest enemys.

As for military defeats, In WW2 america wasn't in the war at the time when france showed how imcapable it was, and it was Britain and her allies who had to retreat back across the channel via dunkirk whith immense cost because of the impcopetentence of the french.
Then the french have slagged us of since then because we put British, Canadian an australian soldiers before french soldiers in the evacuation.

Before WW2 the French were a strong ally in WW1 and the Crimea an immense power in the Napoleon wars who conquered the whole of europe. A stong Colonial empire unitl the indian wars although got there own back in the american reveloution. And before then have easily been one of the stongest powers in the world for a long time

So it's not fair saying they have always been defeated and are shit, because it was only in WW2 when they were completely bollocks.

They hate americans but they hate the whole ango-sphere, Even so It was the British commonwealth an America who Liberated them they still hate us the most.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.

War of 1812 - Lost

Korea - Lost

Vietnam - Lost

Iraq - Lost

War on Terrorism - Lost

[Draconias]

At 1/2/07 10:00 AM, tawc wrote: I don't understand why americans hate france, The way I see it is that france is americas first and greatest ally,

But they aren't. France was never our ally, and in part the anti-French sentiment is a reaction to the false belief that they assisted us. The French just continued their own feud with Britain, they weren't our allies in any sense except as enemies of our enemy.

Currently, most anti-French sentiment comes from the stark cultural and ideological differences between our nations. France is the birthplace of Communism, and still an active supporter of Socialistic policies. Americans hate that. Their ideas are polar opposites of our own on most issues, so Americans make rude jabs at them occasionally, although the sentiment never hardens into bigotry.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 10:43 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:00 AM, tawc wrote: I don't understand why americans hate france, The way I see it is that france is americas first and greatest ally,

But they aren't. France was never our ally, and in part the anti-French sentiment is a reaction to the false belief that they assisted us. The French just continued their own feud with Britain, they weren't our allies in any sense except as enemies of our enemy.

Thats true, infact all the other colonial empires basically fought Britain in the american revelotion, All because Britain had the best land (america) But without them I doubt America would of won.

[AMFYOYO]

I think it's because of ignorance. I've been to France many times, and they are generally good people. I think to attack an entire country on the basis that they are "cowards", (when in fact they used to be a world super-power, and very apt fighters) is self-centered and prejudice.

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.

War of 1812 - Lost

Korea - Lost

Stalemate.

Vietnam - Lost

Won-technically because our goal was to prevent invasion from north vietnam. Was prevented, only to later have north vietnam to invade again, however due to increase protests and resentment at home we didn't go back.

Iraq - Lost

We're still there. Least amount of death in nation's history.

War on Terrorism - Lost

see above.

Of course, if you knew anything about history...

[Tomsan]

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote: So you're saying that WWII doesn't count because France wasn't ready? I'm kind of predisposed to the line of thought that says that a loss is a loss regardless of circumstances even if they are unfair.

No I am nor saying it doesnt count, but I was just wondering what the topic starter was talkin about when he said americans talk about the military losses of france. if you go back into history I think you can find every nation to have lost and won countless wars. I was talking about modern day france, and I think this was formed somewhere early 1800. The dutch fought countless wars to before we formed the netherlands.

[swayside]

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.

War of 1812 - Lost

Korea - Lost

Vietnam - Lost

Iraq - Lost

War on Terrorism - Lost

I don't believe the American war record has anything to do with what I said. You said 'what losses' so I said 'these losses'. I did, in fact, explicitly say that I, myself, don't have a large enough base of research to have an opinion on France one way or the other.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 02:17 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.

War of 1812 - Lost

Korea - Lost

Vietnam - Lost

Iraq - Lost

War on Terrorism - Lost

I don't believe the American war record has anything to do with what I said. You said 'what losses' so I said 'these losses'. I did, in fact, explicitly say that I, myself, don't have a large enough base of research to have an opinion on France one way or the other.

Because the way those wars were described, was as if french hadn;t won any wars. And the ones they have won are because of someoneelse.
But if you look at american wars...

America hasn't had many wars in there history, and they havn't had that many 'clear' victories as it is.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 12:33 PM, Techware wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

Your being a bit biased on the way you determin on how france lost those wars, I could say the same about the 15 or so american wars.

War of 1812 - Lost

Korea - Lost

America invaded but did not succed in all there goals.

Vietnam - Lost

Won-technically because our goal was to prevent invasion from north vietnam. Was prevented, only to later have north vietnam to invade again, however due to increase protests and resentment at home we didn't go back.

It was really lost, the Military were slowly winning allthough with incredible cost of life an money. And eventually the goverment pulled them out. You lost

Iraq - Lost

We're still there. Least amount of death in nation's history.

That doesn't make any difference how little amount of casulties you undertook, Iraq is now on the Brink of civil war. America an Britain etc failed to find any WMD's and Iraq is in a worse state than it was before.

War on Terrorism - Lost

see above.

I only said that because the other person was said france had lost the war on terrorism. Which would mean americas losing it too.

Of course, if you knew anything about history...

I know plenty about history, I was just pointing out america hasn;t really been that succesfull with there 15 odd wars.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/2/07 02:44 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:17 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

America hasn't had many wars in there history, and they havn't had that many 'clear' victories as it is.

And we haven't had many losses considering that Korea was a UN War and a stalemate and that the War of 1812 was in all esences a win.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 02:51 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:44 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:17 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

America hasn't had many wars in there history, and they havn't had that many 'clear' victories as it is.

And we haven't had many losses considering that Korea was a UN War and a stalemate and that the War of 1812 was in all esences a win.

Except that in the war of 1812 america invaded canada to try an be imperialistic but failed.
In Korea probably 90% (I expect more) of UN forces were American, Anyway, yea Britain was in korea too and we lost. Just like america.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/2/07 02:57 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:51 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:44 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 02:17 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/2/07 10:06 AM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 09:59 AM, swayside wrote:

Except that in the war of 1812 america invaded canada to try an be imperialistic but failed.
In Korea probably 90% (I expect more) of UN forces were American, Anyway, yea Britain was in korea too and we lost. Just like america.

A. America originally declared war in the War of 1812 due to British impressment of US sailors on the High Sea's.

The Canadain Invasion was just one part of it. The British stopped kidnapping our sailors and making them fight for them, so in that essence, we did win.

Along with numerous battles and turning back the british invasion.

Or that fact that Korea was a UN tie. Doesn't matter if it had more US troops, it was fought under the UN banner.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 03:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Except that in the war of 1812 america invaded canada to try an be imperialistic but failed.
In Korea probably 90% (I expect more) of UN forces were American, Anyway, yea Britain was in korea too and we lost. Just like america.

A. America originally declared war in the War of 1812 due to British impressment of US sailors on the High Sea's.

The Canadain Invasion was just one part of it. The British stopped kidnapping our sailors and making them fight for them, so in that essence, we did win.

Along with numerous battles and turning back the british invasion.

lol The Oppresing of sailors wasnt the main reason, the real reason was american wanted to own canada and they failed, The reason Britain stopped kidnapping american sailors and signed the treaty Ghent was because by the end of the war of 1812 the Napoleonic wars were over and therefor Britain didn't need any more men for there ships.

It makes me laugh if it was the other way round and Britain had invaded america, You'd have a fuckin national holiday for it.

Or that fact that Korea was a UN tie. Doesn't matter if it had more US troops, it was fought under the UN banner.

It was commanded by the US, everything was about the US, If Korea was a clear victory you would be saying 'yea well america did all the work etc'

If it annoys you I'll just say the UN failed, because they did! America, Britain, Australia an the rest, they all failed.

[stafffighter]

World War 2. France was far from the only place taken. What I love is that people are still judging them but not passing any bad vibes to the italians or japanese. They were only, you know, the guys killing our guys.

Vietnam. They didn't win, neither did we.

Napolionic wars. Yeah he lost, eventually. But he took a big chunk of europe first.

Iraq. Most of the world didn't want in on it. No point in singling them out.

[zzzzd]

French were pathetic in WW2 but back in the day. Napoleon was one of the greatest leaders in History. He completly took Europe basically.

If Hitler had learnt from Napoleons mistakes Hitler would of won.

Both Invaded Russia in winter
and Both were thwarted in invading Britain which led to there downfall.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/2/07 05:17 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 03:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

lol The Oppresing of sailors wasnt the main reason, the real reason was american wanted to own canada and they failed, The reason Britain stopped kidnapping american sailors and signed the treaty Ghent was because by the end of the war of 1812 the Napoleonic wars were over and therefor Britain didn't need any more men for there ships.

Because obviously we all know that your one of the most credible sources for historical information.

It makes me laugh if it was the other way round and Britain had invaded america, You'd have a fuckin national holiday for it.

Britian did invade America you dumbshit.

[tawc]

At 1/2/07 07:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/2/07 05:17 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 03:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

lol The Oppresing of sailors wasnt the main reason, the real reason was american wanted to own canada and they failed, The reason Britain stopped kidnapping american sailors and signed the treaty Ghent was because by the end of the war of 1812 the Napoleonic wars were over and therefor Britain didn't need any more men for there ships.

Because obviously we all know that your one of the most credible sources for historical information.

Look in a fuckin history book. The Napoleon wars ended in 1814 and therefore Britain no longer needed more man power or to controll atlantic trade (another little reason america used to invade canada)

It makes me laugh if it was the other way round and Britain had invaded america, You'd have a fuckin national holiday for it.

Britian did invade America you dumbshit.

Yea But after America had invaded canada.

Some people will say america invaded for other reasons rather than for more land and that britain invaded america for other reasons rather than getting there colonies back,
Howether any sensible historian will tell you that America wanted Canada an Britain wanted america back.

America was pushed out of canada, Britain werent pushed out rather had to leave due to lack of supplys ect to hold a position.

In a way it was a stalemate but America set out to take Canada an failed. So it was more a British Victory than an american.

[JakeHero]

All I can say is, tawc, is you hope Cellardoor doesn't look in this thread.
Thank you.

[AdamRice]

I personally don't have anything against France.

I think the main reason everyone hates them today (or thinks they hate them), is because France did not support the US with invading Iraq or the war on terror.

Then through all sorts of political jargon and media broadcasting it eventually turned into, "France hates freedom because they don't think we should kill terrorists", or something along those lines.

Then there was the whole "freedom fries" thing.

I don't really know the dynamics of the situation, I guess you could argue that France has lost plenty of wars, or only won because of assistance from others.

But in this day and age it seems stupid to hold a grudge against them for those reasons. It also doesn't seem right to single them out for disagreeing with an Iraq invasion when other countries were not in support of it either.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is that I think most Americans don't even know why they hate France. They just hear other people say something like, "French woman have hairy arm pits, French are cowards, French hate freedom, French are dirty, stinky pricks", and then go on to jump on the France hating band wagon because they think it gets them in with the political know how crowd.

Or at least that is what I have observed from the people in my high school.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/2/07 06:19 PM, zzzzd wrote: Both Invaded Russia in winter
and Both were thwarted in invading Britain which led to there downfall.

Actually, Operation Barbarossa, began in the middle of June. June 22nd 1941 to be exact, that's far from Winter. Also if Germany had been able to sustain Blitzkrieg Speeds at the time they would easily reached Moscow by October, before the Russian Winter began.

You must think of what Napoleon was doing too. It was the early 1800's. You couldn't just march troops through a roughcountry more than a thousand miles and back fighting the entire time quickly enough to avoid winter, especially the Russian Winter which is notoriously long, especially in the 1800s during what is sometimes called the mini ice age.

[stafffighter]

I just want to ask one more time, where's the racism for the people who were killing Americans in the second world war?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/2/07 09:56 PM, stafffighter wrote: I just want to ask one more time, where's the racism for the people who were killing Americans in the second world war?

Put behind us the way it should be.

The dislike of the French now is just a partisan tool to get more Americans to agree and band together against an "enemy." The French have done nothing that is harmful to the US. We get mad because they are using our system against us, oh no! Maybe that's our fault for trying to bring countries together ina diplomatic setting. Maybe it's our fault for believing the world owes us something. it's not France's fault for looking out for France. All the US ever does is look out for the US. SO faulting France is nothing less that boldly hypocritical.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/2/07 07:46 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 07:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/2/07 05:17 PM, tawc wrote:

At 1/2/07 03:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Look in a fuckin history book. The Napoleon wars ended in 1814 and therefore Britain no longer needed more man power or to controll atlantic trade (another little reason america used to invade canada)

And didn't they stop oppressing American seamen.

Yes, Canada was a deciding key factor, but you base it as the sole reason.

Yea But after America had invaded canada.

You still typed that Britian didn't invade America.

America was pushed out of canada, Britain werent pushed out rather had to leave due to lack of supplys ect to hold a position.

New Orleans.

In a way it was a stalemate but America set out to take Canada an failed. So it was more a British Victory than an american.

Like I said earlier, to base it soley on Canada is idiocy and likewise to base that the British had a victory, for what.

What was Britian trying to achieve, what were they victorious in. If it was fighting some battles against a backwater nation that was scarcely 50 years old and losing a good chunck of them was thier goal, then yeah they were victorious.

[random8982]

For all you who enjoy a good laugh at the expense of the French

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/2/07 09:56 PM, stafffighter wrote: I just want to ask one more time, where's the racism for the people who were killing Americans in the second world war?

Nuked and sold into western capitalism per Japan...and the Italians? They played their part executing Mussolini and holding to peace accords after the war. What's so beneficial about kicking an old, beaten dog, when mocking a cowardly neighbor might produce some sort of valiance in the future?

[Memorize]

At 1/2/07 09:32 PM, fasdit wrote:

I think the main reason everyone hates them today (or thinks they hate them), is because France did not support the US with invading Iraq or the war on terror.

We've hated them a hell of a lot longer than that. Try WWI longer.