Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The following text has been reverted from the opening paragraph by User:VerilyVerily: he following former text was bowdlerized: "Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is an exaggerated discrediting of all things French, which is given a rationale through disapproval of the actions and attitudes of the French government, but which can be recognized by its undertones of moral censure ("treacherous" "cowardly" or "frivolous") and by implicit jingoism."

What a very ignorant entry and what an abysmally stupid discussion.

(The above by Wetman.) What are you talking about? I can't even understand this. I didn't revert anything; I rewrote the paragraph to make it more neutral, clearer, and similar to Anti-American sentiment. And what discussion are you referring to? And please sign your posts. Why on Earth do you say RickK and me "control" this article?; the edits I made a few hours ago were the only ones I've ever made to this article, and RickK has only a few minor edits before then. So, you'll have to explain. - VV 05:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this external link at the end of the page, a dead link  ? Editorial- "The Truth Behind the French Opposition to America" ? -- phe 03:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

jingoism

RickK: in our own article, Jingoism is described as "chauvinistic patriotism, especially with regard to a warmongering political stance." These seems to me to be an accurate description of some of the discourse in the US w.r.t to the French over the past year (Freedom Fries and all). Why do you object to this term? -- Viajero 21:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Take it out of the first sentence. The term is loaded, and implies that the only reason why there is anti-French sentiment is because of American bias. It does not allow for the possibility that there might be just some possibility that justifies the reactions. I'm not saying that the reactions ARE justified, only that the tone of including words like jingoism makes the first sentence POV. RickK 23:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I added a note about anti-French sentiment corresponding with tensions in Franco-U.S. relations, and called "jingoism" an extreme manifestation of this sentiment. These concerns have been addressed. 172 00:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It is a POV term in describing anything, and is grossly innacurate in decription of the anti-french in the USA generally. Shouldn't this article just be titled Anti-French sentiment? The English are better known for their "francophobia" (geez, what a joke term, like ANYBODY is scared of the french?) Sam [Spade] 23:58, 16 May 2004 (UTC) Sam

Much of the content in this article isn't that bad, actually, at least the stuff not dealing with the 2003 Iraq war. Perhaps this article it should be redirected, and the content integrated with the text in an article about Franco-U.S. relations. 172 00:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Current wording about jingoism is much better, but I think the historical import of anti-french sentiment amongst english speakers generall;y is unaddressed. Sam [Spade] 00:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

The romanticized overview of Franco-U.S. relations before the Second World War (the "Francophobia" section) is of even greater concern. It's a bit problematic that, say, the Quasi War and the XYZ Affair get no mention. And what about the French Revolution? 172 00:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

France does not recognize civil rights.

what is this about? Can I hear a bit more about this accusation? I consider myself rather well versed in amusing characterizations, but this one escapes me. Sam [Spade] 15:09, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Like: "France has no freedom of religion/speech/whatever." or "France anyway has the presumption of guilt, how dare they hint that we treat prisoners badly or don't offer them a fair trial." (Bill O'Reilly more or less said the latter, if I remember well.) David.Monniaux 20:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, ok. I hadn't heard that (I always assumed France to be rather liberal). Is there truth to it? You are French, yes? Sam [Spade] 05:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion (including, but not limited to, religion) are constitutional rights (1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). Of course, as everywhere, there may be a difference between the ideal and what happens in practice.

Interestingly, many people in France with at least some tinge of anti-Americanism consider the US justice system to be unfair, biased against defendants as long as they are poor and/or from ethnic minorities. David.Monniaux 11:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

accusations section

I think this section was a great idea, bringing the subject into the light, and placing the square light of objectivity on what are many of the common stereotypes. Sam [Spade] 06:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The encyclopedic content is the history of Franco-US relations and its effects on perceptions of France within the US. That information, though incomplete, should form the heart of the article. The "accusations" section is nothing but a list of crude stereotypes so overstated that few could seriously hold most of them to that degree (e.g., the French may be vaguely considered weak, but Napoleon is well known), and then (almost as crude) rebuttals using POV language which seem designed to make Americans look ignorant rather than provide balance, which would be the only useful function of such counterclaims. The section should have a heavy rewrite rather than heavy prominence. VV 23:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, an encyclopedia document facts, and it is a fact that those stereotypes and jokes are often said, including by some US politicians. The rebuttals are simply meant to explain how these jokes are factually wrong - in a similar way that Wikipedia guidelines state that when discussing fictional characters or events, one should always state that they are fictional in the introduction. If we have to explain that Darth Vader is a fictional character and not a real person, I guess that we may explain why some jokes ignore facts. This has nothing to do with making Americans in general look "ignorant".

Now, my opinion is that any person making jokes like "how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? nobody knows, it has never been tried" either is utterly ignorant of history, either shows enormous bad taste and insensitivity. I think that it is a significant fact in international relations that some prominent citizens of a country, especially politicians with a national career, can allow themselves to make such comments about foreign allies, and that it is very telling of some attitudes inside that country. David.Monniaux 06:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well, it's important to not be bring sensitivities into this. Jokes are just that, jokes, and the Paris joke can be found as funny even though it is obviously not true. By encyclopedic content, I mean professional quality, not lists of crude jokes. The article should be about anti-French sentiment. It would also be inappropriate in the article racism to include long lists of "nigger jokes". Rather, the phenomenon should be discussed from a dispassionate point of view as a sociological phenomenon. A few examples might help in this regard, but the "accusations" section both is not written very neutrally and has a choice of examples which are too extreme and rebutted too coarsely. VV 09:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself insufficiently well. To me, it is a significant fact that major US politicians can afford to make jokes such as the Paris joke over the tomb of the millions of French soldiers that died in WW1 to defend Paris, or the hundreds of thousands that died in WW2. To follow your example, no major US politician could nowadays make a "nigger joke" without being asked to step down. Still, interestingly, it is possible to mock France in such a way, and it is perfectly acceptable; your own dismissal of the matter as insignificant is actually very significant in that context.

To me, sociologically, it means that there's an ingrained acceptance in the American society of mocking the French in ways that would instantly gain condemnation on grounds of racism or xenophobia if jokes of similar insensitivity and arrogance were aimed at other communities.

In short, what I find interesting is not those particular examples of anti-French sentiment, but the fact that they may be regularly uttered in the press, political meetings etc... and that everybody finds that acceptable or merely dismisses them as harmless jokes.

I also note that if in a foreign country some major politicians made jokes about the United States on the same level, that foreign country would be branded "anti-American" by the American press.

The examples I gave may be extreme, but most were taken in the mainstream American media. Yes, it is probably a sad fact that the American political and mediatic establishment may go to such levels, and I find it enterely appropriate to reflect that fact, however unflattering it is for the said establishment. David.Monniaux 14:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Anti-French / Anti-American

This article is a counterpoint to the even more-virulent Anti-Americanism article in which the US are criticized for everything down to the fact that "In God We Trust" is on the coins. Each of these articles are untouchable in one sense in that they describe perceptions. If the perceptions exist they are unarguable whether or not they are factual.

For my part, both could go. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer everything factual to stay, including a variety of disgusting articles I won't list here for the sake of our respective sanities ;) I will admit that the franco-american conflict (which goes back to British/French historical rivalries) amuses me to no end. I see France as a rival superpower, something which would send many of the merry pranksters who coined some of the "accusations" into hysterics, but they are a signifigant nuclear power and the #3 military spender generally [1]. I tend to think the most of the stereotypes about France (and about americans, and heck, most generally) are true, altho I will say I never noticed any lack of cleanliness on the part of any French person I have met, altho one did sing the praises of horsemeat and male bisexuality ;) (anecdotal of course, I've met less than 5 native French in my life). On the other hand, most americans do seem to be fat, arrogant, and stupid, at least in my crude estimation (the evidence, while anecdotal, is more striking here, being that I am american ;) Anyhow I love information, and so long as its not innaccurate (and opinions rarely are) and is fairly presented (as I think this is) it has a place here. That being said, theres no reason for people who are annoyed w such to be editing these pages, nor reading them for that matter. Sam [Spade] 16:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

most americans do seem to be fat, arrogant, and stupid

Do you really think it's fair to judge most Americans on Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and Michael Moore? ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 16:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was going off of me and my friends, but those are pretty good examples too ;) Sam [Spade] 16:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

If you think about it, arrogance is one stereotype both the french and americans have in common. Perhaps we should find a way to celebrate this common ground? ;) Sam [Spade] 16:59, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Over Texas barbecue and French wine, of course. :) -- Cecropia | Talk 17:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The portrayal of pre-WW2 American sentiment towards France as Francophilic is correct insofar as the facts it portrays, but a bit too rosy. Americans still had a bit of anti-French sentiment, though it was more light-hearted. The two main components of it were a feeling that French were snooty, overly-concerned with formality, and aristocratic (as compared to down-to-earth Americans), especially after the restoration of the monarchy, and a feeling that Parisians in particular had loose morals (especially as regards promiscuity). As Mark Twain (a 19th-century American author) put it, "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals—apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country." So something about that should be added in. --Delirium 17:42, May 23, 2004 (UTC)