French and American relations

[BlkXplsn]

America and France have a deep history together.

France was one of the major reasons we won the Revolutionary War.
America was one of the major reasons the French don't speak German.

WHY DO THE AMERICANS AND FRENCH FIGHT?

This is retarded. We are allies, and we have helped each other in our nations most trying times. If anything, we should not like the English (because of the Revolutionary War) and be closest to the French. That would actually make sense to me.

And please, try and keep this at least semi-serious. It would be retarded if some people decide to randomly flame the other country, especially when the only reason I know of that the French and Americans don't get along is a big incesteous media cycle of OMG America hates the French... OMG France hates America.

[Matt]

I think you answered your own question:

"France was one of the major reasons we won the Revolutionary War.
America was one of the major reasons the French don't speak German."

No one likes bein reminded of their debts.

[Azhrei]

Could it *possibly* be the immense arrogance that each group of people feel toward their own nationality?

On one hand, you have the belief that being American means you can do whatever the hell you want simply by virtue of how much groin you can stomp, and on the other hand there's the belief that being French means you're inherently cultured just because you have the Louvre and everyone drinks wine.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Part of it is probably the cultural perceptions of Americans. The French are supposedly snooty, uncooperative, and artsy. From the French side, they're culturally recovering from losing a global empire--in living memory, still--and probably kinda resent that another country is so clearly dominant. Think about the international postal languages: French and English. French used to be spoken all over the planet, and now it's become superfluous because every cultural elite in the world now speaks English, not French. Americans have the impression of France as a place that believes it still has something to be snooty about, but has nothing to back it up now that America is the only country in the world that matters. The French have the impression of America as a bunch of arrogant imperialists who need someone to put them in their place.

Both are correct, hence the rivalry.

[jpmeyer]

The opposition between high and low culture

[Saucemaster]

The opposition between high and low culture

That's probably part of it, and the previous points are well-taken, too, but it's also interesting that most of the cultural animosity between France and America begins post-WW2.  Prior to that you've got Hemingway/Fitzgerald/etc and Paris is the undisputed cultural center of the world, and there doesn't seem to be any real national, culturally embedded sense of resentment on either side.  And that was at a time when the high/low culture opposition was, if anything, even more in effect between the two nations than it is now.

There are a few things that I think probably contribute to the post-WW2 animosity; one is that alot of the world generally resents American power.  This is not to pass judgment on whether they should or not, so no political arguments here, please.  But they do, and we all know it.  From the French side, couple this with the points that Dr. Sylvan made (loss of empire, etc) and throw in a dash of cultural arrogance (on both sides, as Azhrei mentioned) and you've got a complex of envy, resentment, and probably a great deal of just plain disappointment with America; there's no question that we've not been everything we could be to the world, given the amount of power we wield.

From the American side, remember that France has always been culturally associated with high culture, and intellectualism.  This is and has always been a very anti-intellectual nation that has a tendency to dismiss any and all cultural altitude as pretention, whether it is in fact pretentious or not.  So that introduces a tension from the very beginning.  It seems to me that especially with the relatively recent growth of the Right Wing on a cultural level--Rush Limbaugh, for example--and the traditionally anti-intellectual, anti-"culture" attitude of the Right Wing, the French have been taking it on the chin in the culture wars.  Add to that the cultural arrogance of both countries, and a good dose of cultural misunderstanding generally, and you've got at least part of America simmering already.  THEN when the Right begins to gain power and the French stymie American ambitions, it begins to boil.

I focus on conservative America not in order to single anyone out, but simply because I don't see that much resentment of the French from liberals here.  If anything, most liberals I know--and look to the left at where I live if you doubt my credentials here--admire the French, especially those who were anti-war this last time around.  Eventually, though, this too may pass.

There's probably quite a bit more, too, and someone with a more encyclopedic bank of historical knowledge at their disposal will probably have more to say about it than I do.  Maybe the late sixties (in both countries), Algeria, DeGaulle, etc. had a large hand in all of it.

[jpmeyer]

The opposition between aristocracy and commoners

[Azhrei]

I think the U.S. has a nasty attitude toward Europe in a lot of ways because American history is, from a certain perspective, one of people who were the bottom of the barrel turning things around.

We cheer for the underdog because for a long time we *were* the underdog... except now we have the ability to give a big, healthy "FUCK YOU"  to every nation who looked down on our ancestors. Embedded cultural ideas like that can subtly shape mindsets.

When you think about it, the U.S. hasn't really lost at anything for ages-- sure, we needed help back in the 1770s, but since then... not a lot of failures. Vietnam really gave us a hit in terms of national pride, but the 9/11 attacks lit a fire under us. The U.S. is the traditional sleeping giant-- we really don't like to get involved with the world (see WWI and WWII), but whenever our own interests are directly threatened, we generally rise up and ruin people's shit.

Regarding France specifically, compare the American Revolution to the French Revolution-- even Jefferson was disappointed in France, and he was a huge francophile. France has that "we fucked up what America did well" in their heads somewhere.

[jpmeyer]

You know what my 2nd favorite word is (behind "manchild?")  Francophone

[kirdape3]

We've been interventionist for aeons.  Just ask our friendly neighborhood Hispanics.

I literally heard one night from a former ambassador to a European country (West Germany I think) that the only reason France and Russia are opposed to the current foreign policy of the United States is that there's only one superpower in the world and it's not either one of them.  While this is a gross oversimplification (France and Russia supplied most of the arms to the Hussein regime even after Desert Storm), it has an extreme element of truth to it.  They're just pissed off because we're ginormous and not them.

[Dr. Sylvan]

When you think about it, the U.S. hasn't really lost at anything for ages-- sure, we needed help back in the 1770s, but since then... not a lot of failures. Vietnam really gave us a hit in terms of national pride, but the 9/11 attacks lit a fire under us. The U.S. is the traditional sleeping giant-- we really don't like to get involved with the world (see WWI and WWII), but whenever our own interests are directly threatened, we generally rise up and ruin people's shit.

I can't believe I missed this for two days. You are correct that Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt had to pull America into the World Wars, but ever since Pearl Harbor we've put ourselves everywhere. I think we have troops in over a hundred countries now. Even in 1997 we were deployed to around a hundred, and I doubt it's gone down since then. We go nuts when we're given a serious impetus, but we're very happy to get involved with even the slightest reason. This is one of the reasons that China is stumbling through military upgrades (they now spend about a tenth as much as us, woooo...): they have a whole circle of countries with American troops around them.

[Bram]

On one hand, you have the belief that being American means you can do whatever the hell you want simply by virtue of how much groin you can stomp, and on the other hand there's the belief that being French means you're inherently cultured just because you have the Louvre and everyone drinks wine.

I'd just like to say, as an independant observer belonging to neither nation, that both these beliefs are true. This hold the key to the question why most of europe doesn't like America OR France

[Smmenen]

For some time I've had this theory that France and the United States are more like each other than any other state on the globe - although I think this is obscured by many stereotypes about both nations - and that partly explains the animosity.  This is just a bald assertion becuase I can't seem to recall the anecdotal evidence which prompted this theory at the moment, and I'm not about to go researching it.  

I think its pretty obvious why there are strains of Anti-Americanism on the continent at the moment.  

Steve

[Dr. Sylvan]

It hasn't made them kick out our 70,000 Germany-stationed troops yet, though I wish that they would. The Red Army's dead and gone, guys! Defending the richest countries in the world from nothing is just making us look stupid.

[kirdape3]

Germany's fairly safe and is pretty close to the Balkan theater, where there would be a pressing need - to the Western Europeans.

Seriously put though, everyone's pissed off since America is ENORMOUS.  It isn't so much _how_ we act (notice how many countries honestly emulate the United States' interventionist policies in their own stated spheres of influence), as that we can act that way to literally EVERYONE at once.  Our military really has no serious challenges besides keeping enough troops (no other military actually frightens the American in any serious way), and our economic might, while slowly eroding to the Chinese, is still paramount.

[Bram]

Seriously put though, everyone's pissed off since America is ENORMOUS.

I have to disagree with that. While I feel the need to state once more that you'll find little or no anti-american sentiments on my part (I've been a big supporter of most recent US policy and I don't question its integrity as much as most do), the fact is that these sentiments do exist in Europe.

Recently, I've read an interview with a military analyst. Apparently, the idea was for about 20.000 US troops to enter the Iraqi theatre. Right now, there are about 120.000. America has an unchallanged military apparatus. They will win ANY war they choose to start and will win it quickly, which is to be expected when you have an army on which you spend some 450 billion dollars yearly. The strength of the US, however, does NOT lie in nation-building. Your continued presense in Iraq is required at this time to prevent the war from being futile. This presense however is costing WAY more than the actual war and is keeping busy a significant portion of your army. So much so that so-called bandit nations do not fear a US invasion at this time. Sure, you can win another war, defeat another army and topple another dictator, but you can't succesfully occupy another country for any length of time. Look at the problems Iraq is already giving you...

Most Europeans aren't pissed off because of the size or quality of the US Army; they're pissed of, basically, because the US seem to think that it's actually important to be large and have a quality army. The European outlook on the world is completely different from the US one. This is the regretful cause of the alienation, and not the fact that you guys pack a bigger punch than we do.

And in my humble opinion, both camps are wrong. And both are right, in a way. How ethereal! Let the healing begin

[Milton]

Most Europeans aren't pissed off because of the size or quality of the US Army; they're pissed of, basically, because the US seem to think that it's actually important to be large and have a quality army. The European outlook on the world is completely different from the US one. This is the regretful cause of the alienation, and not the fact that you guys pack a bigger punch than we do.

Interesting analysis.

My perspective is a little different.  I teach high school seniors and talk to their parents.  I am amazed at how hurt they are by what the French and Germans did.  Regarding the French specifically, most of the people I talk to seem to feel betrayed by the French, feeling that the French just want to serve as a counterweight to US power.  I constantly hear "we bailed them out of two wars, rebuilt their country and this is the thanks we get!!?".

Truth be told, the French have to appease their Islamic populations much more so than does the US.  Germany is in the same position.  Face it, after WW II a European is much more likley to have a Muslim as a neighbor than they are to have a Jew for a neighbor.  The opposite is true in the US (maybe not actually true, but the Jewish populaiton in the US is much more influential).  This gives the US and Europe far different views on the Arab - Israeli conflict, and far different views on suicide bombings, terrorism, freedom fighting, the role of the oppressed, the use of the military...  Following WWII the US took up a much more aggressive posture to dealing with foreign policy, especially in regards to Soviet relations.  All the while the French were reluctant to get involved, being a token member of NATO and even pulling troops out of West Germany for a while, refusing to take an active role in protecting the line from Soviet intervention.  While the US got good at matching aggression by the Soviets with action, the French and Germans got good at talking, posturing and not getting involved.

None of this really has anything to do with Bush.  Protests were everywhere when Clinton would visit Europe too.  The 90's issued in an era of anti-Americanism.  After the Soviets went away and American power was unchecked, the stance taken by the French was one of constant criticism.  The US gets involved in Somalia and suffers a defeat, then is criticized for leaving.  We don't get involved in Rawanda, and a criticized.  We wait in the Balkins, claiming it is a European problem.  Europe watches genocide and debates, so the US finally jumps in, and is criticized.

I wonder if we have entered an era where the US can do no right?  Is this the constant hate of the dominat power?  The Goths and Vandals sitting around bitching about how Roman influence is too great?  Forget the roads and aquaducts and relative peace, those damn Romans suck!  Clearly this is what's going on right now.  A dislike of the dominat power.  America doesn't give enough aid.  They don't enter Kyoto.  They use too many resources.  They are responsible for Global Warming.  It's their fault.  Some of this is genuine and is sincere.  Much of it, however, serves to distract from problems at home.  Much of Europe suffers from 9%-11% unemployment.  A genrerally sluggish economy.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtin, though, because the US is the real bastard.

On the other hand, many in the US are frusterated with a lack of european cooperation.  You owe us, you bastards.  We saved your ass from German and then Soviet conquest.  Do as we say!!  Follow blindly.  Surrender your soverigenty when we ask.

Most Americans, though, love the British and have a very fond appreciation of Tony Blair, though.

[Dr. Sylvan]

They don't enter Kyoto. They use too many resources. They are responsible for Global Warming. It's their fault.

One thing Europeans and Americans generally agree on is that nothing can possibly be going right with the environment, no matter what evidence anyone presents to the contrary. [/battlingMisconceptionsFutilelyAndRepressingDiatribe]

Most Americans, though, love the British and have a very fond appreciation of Tony Blair, though.

I think it's mostly John Cleese that we love. :)

[Bram]

Truth be told, the French have to appease their Islamic populations much more so than does the US. Germany is in the same position. Face it, after WW II a European is much more likley to have a Muslim as a neighbor than they are to have a Jew for a neighbor. The opposite is true in the US (maybe not actually true, but the Jewish populaiton in the US is much more influential). This gives the US and Europe far different views on the Arab - Israeli conflict, and far different views on suicide bombings, terrorism, freedom fighting, the role of the oppressed, the use of the military

Touchy subject. Now I can't speak for France or Germany, but for Holland, this is simply untrue. True as it may be that over 6% of our population adheres to the Muslim faith and it is projected than within a few years, most major Dutch cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam) will actually house more immigrants than indiginous people, their influence on politics is insubstantial. Why is that, you may well ask. Over the past decades we have built a political structure than strictly separates 'church' from 'state'. This is actually a bit of an emerging problem, since the Muslim faith does not know (or accept) any such distinction. Regardless: our political decision are never based on the religious ideas of any majority and are certainly not attempts at appeasing any minority.

I think we can find clues as to the aforementioned difference in outlook on the world in the way we conduct business.

Dutch businesses (and politics) have traditionally been based on what we call the 'poldermodel': a long-standing Dutch tradition of seemingly endless debate in an attempt to satisfy all parties. We have our nation's post-WWII succes to thank to this model and it led to the perfect, well thought-out decisions in some cases. In other cases, it led to situations where people debate stuff for so long that the situation at hand escalates and renders the debate futile. Either way: the original problem's gone. The Americans have a more hands-on approach to managerial-type decisions and are more prone to forcing quick decisions, reasoning that if they're correct, they were incredibly efficient and if they weren't, there's still time and money to spare in order to fix them.

Something's to be said for both theories, and against them, too. The downside of the European outlook is that it leads to the Balkan genocide. The downside of the US one is that it leads to the rest of the world disliking you.

But what's the root of this differing outlook? My guess is it's genetic and social. Don't forget that, by and large, Americans are Europeans that left because they were unsatisfied with something. One way or another, they didn't 'fit in', so they left with their pioneering spirit and built a nation with their bare hands. I think that attitude is still present, passed on as it may have been through either genetic or social channels (history) or both and becomes evident in the perception of the rest of the world.

On the other hand, many in the US are frusterated with a lack of european cooperation. You owe us, you bastards. We saved your ass from German and then Soviet conquest. Do as we say!! Follow blindly. Surrender your soverigenty when we ask.

Many Europeans will respond to such statements like this: we owe you nothing. We spawned you. You only became an active player in WWII after you yourselves were attacked. You would never have even have helped to liberate europe if it would not have been in your own best interest.

[Azhrei]

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.

-- Will Rogers

 

[Toad]

The current position France has towards the USA has little to nothing to do with our important Muslim community. Last time I checked, there was no Muslim in the French head government. Point is: "Why did you, Americans, invade Iraq?". I know Saddam Hussein is evil, but seriously, why? The main reason the government mentionned was the fact that Iraq got the nuclear power. UN emmissaries went to Iraq and found nothing. Bush requested a military intervention from the UN, and the UN supreme comitee rejected that idea. How come can Bush disobey the UN? Do you want to know why the US army didn't go to Rwanda or in the Balkans? Petrol. Yeah, petrol. Iraq has petrol. Not Rwanda. From an European point of view, the US intervention in Iraq has nothing to do with Human rights. It's all about petrol. Why did Bush refuse to let the UN create a government in Iraq and installed his own? To keep control over the country. That's what most Europeans don't appreciate. The World NEEDS strong counterweights to the US power. The US Army is not the World's Police. See how things goes in Iraq. Iraqiis are rebelling. They don't want Americans in Iraq. They feel oppressed, occupied. Iraq will not become the 52nd American state. Anti American terrorism will prevent that. Sad, but reallistic. Kicking a dictator out of his country is easy. Building a country is not. The French refusing the US interventionism policy is not new. France (under De Gaulle) left NATO because of that.

On the other hand, many in the US are frusterated with a lack of european cooperation. You owe us, you bastards. We saved your ass from German and then Soviet conquest. Do as we say!! Follow blindly. Surrender your soverigenty when we ask.

We owe you nothing. USA get involded in the war in December, 1941, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. War started in 1939 in Europe. Two years before. You helped in Europe's reconstruction. True reason? Make profits. The post WW2 US industry became strong thanks to that. The Marshall Plan was a sneaky way to keep control on European's countries and prevent Socialism to expend. That was nice, but still pure manipulation.

Most Americans, though, love the British and have a very fond appreciation of Tony Blair, though.

That's because Tony Blair says "Yes" to whatever Bush asks.

Recently, I've heard a funny story on the French TV. A French student has been arrested in New-Yorks JFK airport for saying "Don't worry, I've not put a bomb in the plane" to a flight attendant who asked him why he stayed to long in the toilets. 10 days in jail. 200 000 dollars fine. And he could have been sent to jail for 2 more years without the French diplomats intervention. Seriously? 2 YEARS?? This is soo unbelievable, but true. Yeah.

[Azhrei]

I fully agree that the U.S. does very little that's not out of self interest, just like every other nation-state in the world. Does this bother me a whole lot? Not really.

I do think that an important point that gets overlooked is that Hussein was failing to comply with UN resolutions... and the UN revealed itself to be the paper tiger that has been suspected for years now. The UN is a joke. For years, the UN has been everyone voting and the US supplying the force. It's not surprising that the UN got cut out of the decision making process-- they really have no authority when you get right down to it.

If a strong counter to US power exists, it's pretty much the ability of the US to cycle into new regimes every few years-- it's certainly not Europe.

A second point to keep in mind is that there are a WHOLE LOT of people in the US who are stilled pissed the fuck off after 9/11. People who are so deeply angry that they don't really care if arab civilians get killed by a misplaced bomb. I'm personally not in favor of that, but I think slow torture is too good for any of those terrorist fucks, and I'd do it myself and then bathe them in pig's blood or anything else I could do to make them impure before I sent them to Hell. If it had good medical benefits I'd make a lifetime career out of desecrating terrorists so they went to their afterlifes in fear for their souls.

So when you have people who are so bone deep mad, statements like "Oh, the US has too much power" slide right off because they're not relevant to the issue at hand. In fact, too much power lets the US accomplish its goal even faster.

Let's also not forget that the Iraq intervention has caused places like Iran and Syria to suddenly become MUCH more compliant, which is a very good thing.

[Bram]

I fully agree that the U.S. does very little that's not out of self interest, just like every other nation-state in the world. Does this bother me a whole lot? Not really.

Good point. Just because it's true, doesn't make it a bad thing. Hell, I don't get involved in fights unless there's something in it for me, either (even if it's only to impress a chick

For years, the UN has been everyone voting and the US supplying the force.

Well, at least the US contribute something to the UN then. Coz they sure haven't payed their membership fees for years on end (some 1.5 billion dollars, in all)..

A second point to keep in mind is that there are a WHOLE LOT of people in the US who are stilled pissed the fuck off after 9/11

See, now THERE's something I can relate to and understand. It's about you guys being scared, angry and vengeful. I would be if those terrorists did something so close to my home, too.

[jpmeyer]

While it's off-topic, it amuses me to no end how people in America have had a massive knee-jerk reaction to the concept of an office of homeland security thinking that Big Brother is here now when a lot of European countries have had departments like that for hundreds of years.

[Dr. Sylvan]

While it's off-topic, it amuses me to no end how people in America have had a massive knee-jerk reaction to the concept of an office of homeland security thinking that Big Brother is here now when a lot of European countries have had departments like that for hundreds of years.

"But Mom! All the other kids have x-ray vision goggles; why can't I?!"

I don't think many Americans are reassured that something is a safe role for government just because it's in place in the EU. Plus, we probably wouldn't have any need for such an apparatus if our government didn't run around pissing everyone off. It's one thing to be the most powerful military on earth, and quite another to deploy that military over the entire planet in some kind of odd belief that we can solve every conflict just by having more firepower. I think if anyone wants our military help, they can apply for statheood. Otherwise, the only US presence overseas should be (a) after they attack us or (b) our pleasant and scrumptious smorgasbord of corporate cultural imperialists.

Afghanistan was the first intervention that I didn't mind because we were attacked first, and as far as I know we had solid evidence they were involved. Iraq, OTOH, seems to have no basis at all in evidence. So what if they weren't living by UN rules? Bram already pointed out that we aren't either. The French have a totally valid criticism of our behavior here.

[Azhrei]

Even more off topic, have you ever noticed how in the US you have to choose between sex and violence?

On one hand, you have people trying to make oral sex illegal, ban gay marriage, say no to sex education, etc..

But, the states like this will also let you walk around the mall with a machete and an AK-47....

And on the other hand, the states that are more sexually liberal have a tendency to define anything sharper than a fountain pen as a deadly weapon that can't be on the streets.

That's what I hate most about America (besides Michael Moore, TRL, and other examples of cultural degeneration): that you basically have to choose between extremes of idiocy.

I want sex AND violence, dammit, and sometimes I want to combine the two into one glorious weekend.

[jpmeyer]

On that topic:

badplayermeyer: like i don't care if the acceptable levels are like universally higher (like france) or universally lower (like korea.) it's just the double standards that annoy me
tassilo27: we can blow people apart in war movies but we can't show a nipple on a screen
badplayermeyer: or worse yet, a penis!
badplayermeyer: that's like instantly nc-17
tassilo27: i know :<
badplayermeyer: ha ha you just got really sad that they don't show penises in movies

[kirdape3]

Toad: Of course it's about oil.  The current proven value of the resources in Iraq is something like $3 TRILLION at current market values.  That's a whole lot of money.  But that's not the real reason - we could just immolate Saudi Arabia, with three times the proven reserves, and have even more money.  It's about control of the absolutely enormous oil fields of Central Asia.

With effective control of those republics (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, et al), the United States has a really REALLY big stick to beat China, Japan, and most of Western Europe over the head with.  All of those countries will come to depend on those oil reserves more and more in the next twenty years, and it will be very easy for the United States to dictate economic terms to those countries if we have the ability to deny oil to them.  It's a very Starcraft-like approach, cutting your opponents off from resources so that they exist only at your sufferance and can't build up to be too much of a threat.  Welcome to geopolitics.  It's very self-serving really, but I doubt that America has the strategic planning capacity to do it.  It's not about 'right' or 'wrong', or even 'he's a bad man', but in eliminating possible American rivals thirty years down the line.

[Azhrei]

What makes me angry is that France was revealed to be the second biggest recipient of Iraqi oil under the Hussen regime, but not only did the media not make a big deal about it, but France STILL seems to be trying to take the moral high ground when it seems pretty clear that their only real reason against invasion was self serving.

Hello, pot? This is kettle. YOU ARE ALSO BLACK!

I'd be against a war that was going to take away my abundant source of cheap oil too.

[dandan]

On the other hand, many in the US are frusterated with a lack of european cooperation.  You owe us, you bastards.  We saved your ass from German and then Soviet conquest.  Do as we say!!  Follow blindly.  Surrender your soverigenty when we ask.

Most Americans, though, love the British and have a very fond appreciation of Tony Blair, though.

I am not sure when the US saved Slovakia from Soviet conquest. Was that in 1945 or during the 1968 uprising?

As for saving Western Europe from Germany, most Germans were tied up on the Eastern Front for the vast majority of the war (at least the part of it when the Germans were losing), non-precision bombing did not have a decisive effect on German industrial production (taking out the V-weapons was significant), the Italian front was no success and Normandy came long after Russia had started beating back the German army. It is rare to hear Russians caliming the Europe owes them even though it is far more accurate to say Russia beat the Germans than America.

Going back on-topic, could it be that standing so close to America has allowed Britain to persuade the world's superpower that France is bad. I always found it odd in England that most people thought of France as the number one 'enemy' even after 2 world wars.  I think the animosity between France and Britain is because one thinks the other sees itself as a world power and isn't and dislikes the fact that the people don't want to speak the language of the other and the other one has exactly the same opinion.

It is a shame because the French accent is truly the sexiest you can hope to hear. Not that I approve of women talking much, of course...