Why does everyone hate the French?

[Raguleader]

From what I understand, the whole French animosity thing probably goes back to the colonial days, when we were all Englishmen fighting the French in the 1760s

That said, Franco-American politics is kinda funny in that it is always going back and forth between us loving eachother and us being ready to tear eachother’s throats out (figuratively, of course). 1760 we hate those darned French, 1780 we love those darned french, 1790’s we hate those darned French again, 1812 we might not care much for the French, but at least they’re not the English, etc.

American support of foreign nations has often been a fickle thing based on whatever the needs of the moment are. If the English attack, then we love the French. If the French attack, then we love the English. That said, with the exception of one huffy and grumpy Spanish teacher I had in Oklahoma, every French person I have met has made a good impression on me. Granted, these were all French people who decided to go to school in Texas for some reason or another, and let’s not discount the fact that at least a few of these were cute French women.

[Captain_Amazing]

@severus

I see your point, but these issues are notoriously misunderstood outside Quebec (and even inside of it).

Well, perhaps they are, but even if they are misunderstandings, they still affect attitudes. I think part of what it is is that up until the 60s and early 70s, there was this understanding that Canada was an English speaking country, with a minority that spoke French. There wasn’t, in people’s minds, an equality…the attitude among a lot of Anglophones, I think (and the Canadian government, really) was that, “Oh yeah, Quebec, we let them speak French”. You know, there was this attitude that francophones were sort of second-class. They didn’t “speak white”, so to speak. And the Quebec authorities, and the people of Quebec went along with that. There was the attitude that that was just the way things were, and maybe even that it was a good thing. The power structure and the Church encouraged that. Look at Dupleissis and the Union Nationale.

Then Lesage becomes premier and stuff starts to change. There’s the “Quiet Revolution”. He takes over the schools from the Church. His government puts in more social welfare, helps industrialization, and, maybe most importantly, creates a national identity. Before him, there were “French Canadians”. Now, there are “Quebecois”. Then, Parti Quebecois comes along and increases that trend. Speaking French becomes no longer something to be ashamed of, but proud of. So, under Levesque, Quebec tries to seperate, Bill 101 gets passed, for example, and he fights with Trudeau over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc.

Meanwhile, the rest of Canada looks at this and says “Huh?”, because what they’re seeing is that Quebec is full of crazy people who are trying to secede, outlaw English, and fighting against human rights guarantees. Of course, I’m oversimplifying here.

[Harmonious_Discord]

@Excalibre

Every large nation in Western Europe was a colonial power. If you’re holding that against the French, I’m smelling more rationalization.

Think of the history taught to children for about a decade and a half. They get taught that group’s of people were oppressors of it’s citizenship. You also get spoon fed the other peoples that they did an injustice to. The way history is taught it’s about the wars, and changes of wars, more than the accomplishments of it’s people. I believe that most systems of education prejudice the children to think other countries are full of bad people and the school direct the perception towards some countries more than others. This is a bit more drawn out explanation, than the short statement I first made.

[Harmonious_Discord]

@UncleRojelio

For the sake of completeness. Search Google for “French Military Victories” and hit the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button. Still, after all these years, you get a page asking if you meant, “French Military Defeats”.

I did and google didn’t.

[ralph124c]

I concur with YPOD. i admire the french way of doing things-they really do tend to do things differently. Take the french cars-many of them are very innovative. french engineering is 1st class-take the high-speed TGV trains. they also make their own jet fighter planes, nuclear submarines, and spacecraft. I think it is a GOOD thing that we have the french-after all, if not for them, we would be all alone.
That said, France always has been the dominant continental power-except for the 5 years of the late 3rd reich.
Oh, and had GWB listened to the french (in 20030, we might well be better off for it.
As for the future, I think the european union will be dominated by the french-the UK likes their island isolation, and germany has too many economic problems. face it, do you want a europe dominated by the … Netherlands? too boring!

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

You are wise, Captain Amazing. Your view of recent Quebec and Canadian history is quite similar to how I would describe it myself, although I would add that part of the English Canadian hostility to Quebec nationalism is due to the fact that ever since English Canada has stopped seeing itself as “British” first and foremost, it has tried to develop an identity of its own, mostly to distinguish itself from the United States, and the fact that Canada is partly French has become an important part of this national identity. I see it when I read the threads about Canadian identity on this board. But this said, congratulations for the work you’ve done to understand the issues.

[Crotalus]

@Harmonious Discord

I did and google didn’t.

UncleRojelio fell for a prank. Or he was whooshing us.

[Oy]

As someone born in 1956, I don’t know that France’s performance in WWII was ever a basis for contempt until the delightful efforts of the current administration to smear them. Yes, they rolled over, but there was a hell of a resistance movement - very effective and very brave.

I think the negative attitude toward the French is based on several things:

1. DeGalle came across as incredibly arrogant. This put people here off, where a politician is required to at least pretend modesty. (BTW, IME, Europeans as a whole are far more open about speaking their minds to you, whether the message is positive or negative. Except for the Brits, of course.)

2. They are very protectionist about their language, or at least have the reputation AND the government agency (or at least provisions) to support that.

3. They are viewed by Americans (almost certainly undeservedly) as being arrogant and rude both on a national and individual level. The general sense seems to be that the French are largely indifferent to other nations’ citizens and welfare unless it has a direct impact on them.

4. They are the “bad” good guys. We know France is an ally, but it seemed to me when I was growing up that the French were always exporting arms/technology to nations which we (the US) felt shouldn’t have them or that they would be the member of the UN Security Council that would vote the “wrong way.”

5. We have a cultural inferiority complex. We expect the French to look down on us both nationally and individually. That’s much easier to take if you can dismiss them as arrogant assholes who wouldn’t praise Versailles if it weren’t French.

As for Quebec, I think the negative attitude toward the province is based on the reported attempts to pretty much outlaw signage and other public speech in English, and their apparent insistance that the rest of the nation must conform to them rather than vice versa. Also, their ridiculous threats to secede, given that I suspect the rest of Canada could spare Quebec a lot better than Quebec could spare the rest of Canada. Also, Canadian French (or at least Arcadian French, which admittedly isn’t Quebec) is pretty awful sounding if your only exposure to French is to how it’s spoken in France.

[Fish_Cheer]

@Excalibre

Every large nation in Western Europe was a colonial power. If you’re holding that against the French, I’m smelling more rationalization.

That’s an interesting use of the word “large”. In this context, it appears to mean “every country larger than Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein”.

[Fish_Cheer]

@Fish Cheer

In this context, it appears to mean “every country larger than Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein”.

Seems like I forgot San Marino.

[Malice]

@Chefguy

In all of the visits I’ve made to France, both as a tourist and on business, I’ve never been treated badly. French waiters can be snotty, but they’re even snotty to the French, so it doesn’t count. I’ve spent as long as a month at a time in Paris, so it’s not a matter of just interacting with hotel personnel.

I was in Paris a few years ago and the people there were uniformly pleasant and helpful in spite of or because of my poor French speaking.

The only exception seemed to be an over-the-top-rude French waiter, who, we quickly realized, was just goofing on the stereotype. He’d rudely and loudly dismiss any request, then fulfill it moments later with a sly wink. Made for a very entertaining meal, actually

[Szlater]

@Oy!

3. They are viewed by Americans (almost certainly undeservedly) as being arrogant and rude both on a national and individual level. The general sense seems to be that the French are largely indifferent to other nations’ citizens and welfare unless it has a direct impact on them.

That’s the impression a lot of people in Europe have of America and Americans.

@Oy!

4. They are the “bad” good guys. We know France is an ally, but it seemed to me when I was growing up that the French were always exporting arms/technology to nations which we (the US) felt shouldn’t have them or that they would be the member of the UN Security Council that would vote the “wrong way.”

Again, the US likes to export arms to unsavoury individuals, governments and organisations. It has propped up more than one tyrant, rigged more than one foreign election and overthrown more than one democratically elected government. In the security council, the US will use its veto to prevent any action, no matter how warranted, against Israel.

[Excalibre]

@Fish Cheer

That’s an interesting use of the word “large”. In this context, it appears to mean “every country larger than Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein”.

I was about to say “every country” but then I realized that Switzerland and the above city-states didn’t have colonies . . .

[Fish_Cheer]

@Excalibre

I was about to say “every country” but then I realized that Switzerland and the above city-states didn’t have colonies . . .

@Fish Cheer

Seems like I forgot San Marino.

… and Switzerland. :smack:

Then again, everybody forgets Switzerland. That’s their modus operandi, basically.

[jjimm]

…and Ireland.

@panache45

I do have a problem, though, with their government. I didn’t have this problem until I was a victim of one of their nation-wide strikes, during which everything, including transportation, shut down.

Can I just point out that the strikes are not of the government’s making: they’re usually in direct opposition to the government, which tends to be more fiscally conservative than the workers.

[Crotalus]

@Oy!

As someone born in 1956, I don’t know that France’s performance in WWII was ever a basis for contempt until the delightful efforts of the current administration to smear them. Yes, they rolled over, but there was a hell of a resistance movement - very effective and very brave.

I was born in 1954 and was taught that the French were ungrateful cowards by my father, who participated in the D-day invasion, and that they were rather quick to surrender, which I was taught in school.

@Oy!

3. They are viewed by Americans (almost certainly undeservedly) as being arrogant and rude both on a national and individual level. The general sense seems to be that the French are largely indifferent to other nations’ citizens and welfare unless it has a direct impact on them.

Not undeservedly, IMO. Take a look at some of the words of Charles de Gaulle at BrainyQuote. He appears to have resembled GWB in his approach to diplomacy and unilateral action.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Oy!

As for Quebec, I think the negative attitude toward the province is based on the reported attempts to pretty much outlaw signage and other public speech in English, and their apparent insistance that the rest of the nation must conform to them rather than vice versa. Also, their ridiculous threats to secede, given that I suspect the rest of Canada could spare Quebec a lot better than Quebec could spare the rest of Canada.

It’s a good thing I’m here to defend my nation, isn’t it? See, this is what I mean when I say that English Canadians and Americans, even when they arrive in Quebec, have an already-formed negative opinion that is shaped by what other people (who don’t know much more than them) and the media tell them. So, this said:

1. Quebec does not “outlaw signage and other public speech in English”, although commercial signage must have French in prominence on it. This issue is one of these that cause the most bad blood against Quebec, mostly because anglophones see it as an attack on their rights, and their media reports it as such. And it leads to the message being distorted as we see here.

2. You’re talking about our “apparent insistance that the rest of the nation must conform to [us] rather than vice versa”. I think Spartydog was saying something similar earlier, and frankly I have no idea what it refers to, but it seems to be mostly an American thing to say, as in “why don’t they just accept that they’re in an English country and start speaking it instead of insisting that they’re different, like our own Hispanic immigrants are doing?” I won’t go into details on why these two cases are different, but let’s just say this: nobody is trying to make anybody else conform. English Canada and Quebec are different and will remain so. I consider them two different nations, but most English Canadians, including here, disagree, so I won’t pursue this outside of GD.

3. As for our “ridiculous threats to secede”… Well, when you consider yourself part of a nation, often you want this nation to have its own nation-state. That’s the simple reason. Both countries that would emerge from this would probably be able to continue existing, but we don’t know for sure what would happen.

Now, Oy!, I’m not pitting you or anything when I say that your opinion of us is based on mostly incorrect or misinterpreted information. Unless you have a personal reason to try to understand the situation, and seek information from many sources to form an educated opinion, you will form your opinion mostly on what you hear, which might be biased or incorrect. We’re here to fight ignorance; this is what I do.

[carnivorousplant]

@Crotalus

I was born in 1954 and was taught that the French were ungrateful cowards by my father, who participated in the D-day invasion, and that they were rather quick to surrender, which I was taught in school.

Man I hate to come to their defense, but didn’t they fight an action that allowed the British to evacuate Dunkirk?

[silenus]

severus, thank you for your post. I’ve been enlightened a bit, because that was how I got most of my “information” on Quebec.

I still don’t like the French though.

[Excalibre]

@severus

1. Quebec does not “outlaw signage and other public speech in English”, although commercial signage must have French in prominence on it. This issue is one of these that cause the most bad blood against Quebec, mostly because anglophones see it as an attack on their rights, and their media reports it as such. And it leads to the message being distorted as we see here.

Right, and this law doesn’t strike me as unreasonable, but you have to understand that this seems incredibly odd to Americans. There are laws regulating signs in most cities’ zoning ordinances, but they only regulate things like height and so forth. It seems very odd that the government would even care what language is on the sign; you gotta realize that that’s atypical.

2. You’re talking about our “apparent insistance that the rest of the nation must conform to [us] rather than vice versa”. I think Spartydog was saying something similar earlier, and frankly I have no idea what it refers to, but it seems to be mostly an American thing to say, as in “why don’t they just accept that they’re in an English country and start speaking it instead of insisting that they’re different, like our own Hispanic immigrants are doing?”

No, that’s not what it represents. I still don’t quite understand the linguistic situation of Canada, but as I understand it, French is co-official in the rest of Canada’s provinces, isn’t it? And if you’re talking British Columbia or Saskatchewan, there’s fewer French speakers than, say, Vietnamese speakers (or so I’ve heard.) So it seems odd that French is used officially in other parts of the country.