All Comments

What is it about the English that causes them to be so ‘unsufferable’?  That question has been asked by most people of the nations of the world. If you travel  thru certain states of the U.S. –those known to have been heavily settled by these people, the presence of roadside litter might serve as the indicator of their progeny; or, ‘something lacking’ in their make-up.  The effect of the English on others not of their kind is also remarkable as an indicator and for this we can take a look at the Ulster Irish and how they view themselves in relation to their blood cousins, the Dublin Irish.  This association, English and Northern Irish, has caused the latter to become most proud; i.e., defining himself as most superior –in fact, not wanting to have anything to do with that long-ago cousin.  The English mein of superiority is shown to have been  ‘rubbed off’ here and there is no other way to look at it !  A person might say:  If you wish to perfect an Irishman (Celt) he must adopt English ways and attitudes.  Need we be reminded of the cult-figures a la Bond, etc.
To the Big M:  Your comments sound like those of ‘a Celt on the make’, sucking up in what has to be the sorry pathway to advancement.

Fred, yet again, your ignorance is breathtaking. The whole point I was making is that the whole “Celtic” thing is mostly an artifical construct created by Irish nationalists. Parts of England are just as Celtic as parts of Scotland, for example.
The Ulster Scots as you call them, are not blood cousins of the Dublin Irish, but are in fact of Scottish descent.
Your comments about the English are basically racist, but this is probably to be expected on this site. You really are a twisted and bitter little man, you are probaly the  sort of half-wit who used to give money the IRA.
The French are not at all popular in parts of Europe or North Africa, but I prefer to judge people on how they are rather than what nationality they are.

I live in France, I like French people, and I like how my French friends will happily tease me about being a perfidious  rosbif, while I tease them for being arrogant froggies. There’s nothing malicious or spiteful, we’re just playing with long held-stereotypes. And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.

Personally I’d suggest the whole surrender name-calling is far older than WWII, far older than WWI, I’d suggest it goes all the way back to the Anglo-French animosity following the 100 Years’ War.  It’s only the 20th Century that has seen Anglo-French alliances, prior to that we were avowed enemies.

Not exactly. It started in the 19th century: Both our nations helped Greece gain its independance from Turkey. Then we helped the Turks against Russia during the Crimean War. And I won’t mention the poor Prince Impérial.

Of course, during that time, there were also some disagrements: remember Fachoda?

“”And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.””

Actually it sort of looks like you you’re laughing with them, not at them.

Fact of the matter is, about 2 million French soldiers  died fighting for France last century. When you tell your “jokes” about how the French are afraid to fight, you spit on the memory of those soldiers. Period.

And TheBigM, what the hell are you still doing here ? We’re obviously not getting through to you.

“”Your comments about the English are basically racist,””

But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right ?

“”but this is probably to be expected on this site””

Unfreakingbelievable. Newsflash. It’s the French who are the victim of xenophobic attacks by your compatriots. Constantly. Miquelon.org reports anti-French activity. This site is extremely well documented.

So now we’re racists because we don’t accept being painted as cowards by your ilk?
Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings ?

You gotta love those double standards. People like trollie or the bigM are only here to justify French-bashing. Disgusting.

The history of England as a nation might be said to have begun with the Norman Conquest in 1066, followed by 200 yrs of occupation (the earlier time period under Alfred would not qualify; inasmuch, the land area under control being one-half in size). This example of a nation’s beginning might seem ruinous; however, we know that nation was to profit mightly from the Norman-French “injection”
–going from what could be called a ‘sleepy backwater (near backwater) existence’ to that of  “dynamic duo”, to be punctuated by actions far and wide of event  lasting to this day. This hybrid, exhibiting “hybrid vigor” (not always successful) in action, has caused the more zealous historian to accurately label it “Anglo-Norman”, rather than  Anglo-Saxon; indeed, Englishman, you have much to be thankful for   –going from ‘sleepy village’ type to that of far more active, enterprising type.  During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ‘ventures-to-type’; however, we know that you were ultimately repulsed (unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union) by that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
Today we see that the British in their (Norman) “enterprising” have discovered oil off the shoreline of ‘their’ Falklands.  It remains to be seen how this will play  out against the rival Argentine claim of ownership over the Malvinas Islas.  In any event it seems the U.S. will not be backing the British ‘this time’ as opposed to the covert assistance rendered during the previous clash (the U.S. Secretary of Defense being awarded a British Govt. Citation for actions undertaken in that episode).
The forgoing, “big M”, is your lesson for the day.  Chew on it and reflect; also, do far more reading so that you might advance in knowledge along this line.

Fred – Oh dear, another breathtaking display of ignorance and bias from the resident anglophobe Fred.
Where to start with such nonsense?
1 – “The history of England can be said to have began in 1066″  No, not really, that’s a very skewed way of looking at it, there were kings of England before 1066 (in the eight century acually), and it was a thriving country under King Alfred in the tenth century, although by 1066 England was not as unified as it had been in earlier centuries and this is reason why the Normans were able to conquer it. The Normans, did have an impact, no doubt, but they were no more cultrally advanced than the anglo-saxons, just militarily so. For many left-wingers, the Norman invasion was regrettable as England lost contact with its Scandinavian roots and became more of centralised, class-ridden country. Many of today’s English aristocratic families are descended from the Normans.
2 ” During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ’ventures-to-type’;”
To see the hundred years war as battle between England and France is just utter nonsense. The hundred years war was a battle between two royal dynasties for control of the French and English crowns.
The conflict has its roots in the Norman conquest and was fought between the houses of Valois and Plantagent both of which had their roots in France.
So, let me spell that out for you Fred, both royal dynasties had their roots in FRANCE, but the Plantagent house (or house of  ANJOU) ruled England at the time. If you acutally bothered to read about it (if you are able to read that is) you would also find out that the following regions faught on the house of Anjou’s side: Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine and Navarre.
Am I missing something or are these areas in modern day France?
3 “unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union”
My god, this is just the most ignorant statement of the lot. No, the Scottish were not “forced” into a union as you put it, the ACTS OF UNION  were signed in 1707 between the two countries which brought the two parliaments together. Have you never heard of this??
that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
‘unbeatable foe ??? – The French have been far from unbeatable: Napolean was seen off by the Russians and an Anglo-Pussian Alliance. To this day, cold winters in Russia are called “un hiver pour les francais”
The Franco-Prussion war? The second world war? Hardly unbeatable.
Lastly, there is one huge flaw in your “argument” or more accurately rant that you put forward.
You claim that it is only because of the Normans (or French as some people on this site see it) that Britain was able to become a global power, but then berate the British for supposedly dominating other countries. So surely this tendancy is down to the Normans, not the English. You can’t have it both ways.
Fred, I would try reading some history books if I was you instead of unthinkingly regurgitating anti-English propoganda that you may have learned at school. Even on this riduculous site, you comments stand out from the crowd in terms of their crassness, ignorance and downright stupidity, although they do make me laugh.

Barney-  “But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right? When I have made surrender jokes on here?
Sorry, when has “my country”  (what does that mean?) made xenophobic attacks on France, as far as I am aware, much of the recent bile has come from the USA. The term “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” did not originate in the UK. 
“Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings” –  Of course not, but Fred is suggesting that the English
are inferior and that is racist.
I am not justifying French-bashing at all, I am interested in the historical relationship between France and English-speaking countries having spent time living in France.  I personally think that the whole anti-French thing in the USA because of the Iraq war was ridiculous, but I am also interested in French people’s attitudes to English speaking peoples and as demonstrated by this site, you don’t have to scratch too far to find some fairly unpleasant views. 

To the BigM:
Gosh, just imagine.  France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
Are you out of your cotton-picking mind ?
Again, during the above war the French proved to be “the unbeatable foe” (the English did hold onto Calais until being kicked out by the Revolutionary Armies at a later time). If you wish to discuss other events and times we can begin with
the British stand at Singapore during WW II.  Yamashita, go get ’em !
Napoleon’s failure in Russia:  We do know that he was warned against invading
Russia by his senior commanders; but, being Napoleon, he did not listen to their
voice of reason (not the first genius to have erred in a terrible way).  Typhus destroyed Napoleon’s Army  —alas, coupled to the most severe winter seen in a century.  One major battle was that of Borodino, terrible for both sides in losses;
however, the French held the field and were the victors.
You trumpet the Scandanavian element as affecting for the better their influence
upon “Anglo” early development.  What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash ?  On one occasion, your resistance to the Dane was to launch a most treacherous reaction to their presence, slaughtering woman and children alike !
Regarding the Saxon   —home-grown variety:  History relates this tribe would not meet the Franks under Charlemagne in open battle; instead, choosing the “hit and run” tactic w/ retreat to the forest edge.  Finally, the issue was settled, Charlemagne exacting a most telling measure in response; i.e., taking the youngest adult son from a family unit(s) and having him beheaded !  Five thousand Saxons being demanded and turned over to Charlemagne, thus lost their heads.  There is a statue of Charlemagne mounted on a horse, in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.  Both French and German claim him. Question:
How does an Englishman view the Saxon admission to his bloodstream ?
Regarding the so-called Acts of Union:
As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter.  They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them.  England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future.  Beware the Welsh bowman !
Regarding Hastings, 1066:
“May the best man win” and he did ! The trickery of Harold was typically Saxon,
learned in Albion’s hothouse of feud and counter-feud, a la Hatfield & McCoy.  As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways.
One last question:
Scatalogical, four-letter words are Saxon in origin.  Have you people advanced out of the trough to the point where you can cast these aside as being archaic ?
Let us hope so.

Changing topics, I had no idea that Quebec had sinkholes! Has Florida migrated to the far North? News from today, 5/12/10.

Thanks for saying this in such an eloquent and approachable way,lucy

Maybe this explains Ridley Scott’s anti-French attitudes : Ridley Scott loses French legal battle to stop ‘bad odours’ – Sir Ridley Scott has lost a court battle to stop farmers next to his Provence home rearing poultry which he claims causes pollution including “bad odours”.

But the idyllic, picture-postcard French way of life offered by the south-eastern region began to go awry five years ago when a couple bought a neighbouring plot in Oppède, near Cavaillon, and set up an organic poultry farm.

“Perhaps the only evident political misfire is that it’s aggressively anti-French at a time when the Greeks are the European bugaboo of choice.”  – Ezra Klein

Too bad about Ridley Scott, I generally like most of his film, and Blade Runner is one of my all time favorites.  It would seems he allowed himself to be personally offended by chicken farmers, of all people.  Seems a lot of wealthy Anglos believe Provence to be their own personal playground.

As for “Robin Hood”, it received mediocre reviews at Cannes, no one seemed to have been impressed with it.  It will undoubtedly garner a better audience in the US, where continued French-bashing is norm.  The film will no doubt attract those who will see it mainly to fulfill their anti-French consumption, i.e. – Conservative Republicans.

Excellent article!  Kudos to Mr. Robert Young for finally stating what we’ve always known in France, to this side of the Atlantic.  This article proves yet again my theory, that French bashing REQUIRES historical revisionism, which itself stems from historical ignorance and illiteracy.

poilu, I fully concour with your analysis. Thanks to Miquelon for finding this!

Problem centers on all of the young inocents who will watch this movie and establish misconceptions. As for the main audiance, there is no doubt that, in the US, such films attract the political Right.

Certes le film à un relent très net de francophobie… Mais cette francophobie plus ou moins assumée est largement critiquée, voire tournée en ridicule par les critiques ! Et ça c’est quand même un progrès : imaginez la même situation, disons cinq ans plus tôt, je n’ose y penser ! Il ne reste plus qu’à espérer, sans trop d’illusions bien sûr, que ça fasse un bide.

Thank you for this article.  It’s very educational.

This has become akin to racism now. And I’m not using that term loosely.

All those scumbags insulting the French people behind their computer screens.
Not once have I heard an American make a surrender joke while residing in France.

People like Hawkins disgust me.

I’ve responded.  Mr. Hawkins piece is classic, and typical of the anti-French psychosis within the American Conservative mindset.   A description of the French very worthy of publications like Der Sturmer.  A perfect example of ethnic/race baiting. 

Julius Streicher would have been proud of you, Mr. Hawkins.

Did you see who he pals around with on his blog ? Rumsfeld. Egads.

I have come to believe that these people are actually enemies of France.
Who hates French people more than these extreme American right wingers ?

They truly wish us harm.  All you have to is read the comments on this Hawkins guy’s blog.

Even the Taliban and Muslim extremists all over the world don’t hate us as much as they do.

J’ai lu une lettre d’un historien dans “le  Monde” qui dénonçait de nombreuses absurdités historiques. Il y est question d’une invasion de l’Angleterre par les Français alors que bien sûr c’était l’inverse pendant la guerre de 100 ans, et Richard Coeur de Lion dont le français était la langue maternelle ne parlait pas anglais et a passé la majeure partie de sa vie en France.

The situation will endure as long as French officials remain mute.
Where is the minister of Culture in all this ?

Too busy diddling Thai boys ?

As I have a few moments, I’ve been looking at the website of this A.W.E. Hawkins and not only is he disconnected from reality, a lot of his commentators are as well! It’s May, 2010 and these people are still in the Dark Ages. Guess I have to totally agree with Barney hasn’t left the building.

My comments were not published on this site, so I will not bother responding to the likes of  “Anakin, Iowa” whose knowledge of history is abysmal to say the least. I just got my hands on Actualité de l’histoire, mars-avril 2010. It has an extensive series on the 1940 defeat. Let me quote page 24-25 : “La bravoure des soltats français. Malgré une situation défavorable sur le plan tactique et stratégique, le soldat français se bat sur le terrain. En 45 jours de combat (10 mai – 25 juin 1940), l’armée française accuse de très lourdes pertes : 92 000 soldats tués, 250 000 blessés, 2500 chars et 900 avions détruits. L’armée allemande est également durement touchée : 49 000 soldats tués, 111 000 blessés, 1800 chars et 1400 avions détruits. ”

Not exactly the image Leno and Hawkins like to peddle.

People like this “A.W.R. Hawkins” need to be challenged to a duel as in the ‘old days’ when comments similar could lead to your death; however, as we know , duels are illegal today   –a situation that allows these cowards to persist with impunity.  Surely someone who has this guy’s acquaintance (or no) could effect the mechanism of “calling him out”  —a “step outside offer” that projects to realism in the stance behind his remarks.  

Je suis Francaise, est je suis de Lille, I was  there in 1940, and again in 1944, Lille was liberated by the Canadians and Englishs  troups, the American came  later when they where fighting in Belgium in Bastogne, they sent their wounded to Lille.
“A.W.R. Hawkins, if you are reading this, and if you don,t like or beleive it, come to see me, I am easy to find, I am in Sundance , Wyoming, you know!!, Wyoming,? just in case you do not know, was part of the Louisiana Purchase, where my ancestors fought and died for.
I  was so sure that French Bashing was done and over with, this is so tacky,
The Bushies are gone, so lets move on, you stupidity is showing, give it a rest, and  A.W. R  , crawl back to under the rock you came from.

Bill  Maher must get his reward,he is one   ” Hell” of a guy, tell it like it is,he has character, too bad only can be seen on HBO, no one else has the guts
to give him his own show, what are they afraid of ???? THE TRUTH.
I will help, what can I do  to get it done.
 

Quite funny. A bit factually incorrect though. Is it right to talk about ‘France’ as far back as 387bc?! 
 
As a student of French I regularly TRADE banter with my French counterparts. We Brits are perfectly happy to be called reserved, unexciting and a nation of alcoholics. We smile as our French friends pass jocular judgement on the lunacy and obsolescence of wall-to-wall carpets in every room. Our food is mercilessly derided. We dish out the standard ‘frog’ and ‘cheese eating surrender monkey’ jibes, and invoke the arrogant, work shy garlic-perfumed stereotype that all parties know full well to be ill-informed, and then we all laugh. 
None of my french friends really belive that our food is inedible, or that we are emotional retards, any more than we believe that there is any substance in our jokes about them. Sensitivity to cultural stereotypes is no better than whatever backward, xenophobic sentiment that may or may not lie behind them, especially when you are talking about a phrase (cheese eating etc) that is rarely used without irony. Laugh it off and carry on, or risk becoming dangerously disconnected from reality.  Whatever happened to france being a mouse with the skin of an elephant?

“Quite funny. A bit factually incorrect though. Is it right to talk about ‘France’ as far back as 387bc?! ”

Well, some americans obviously think so. RRemember that “complete military history of France” (very incomplete) list that was circulating on the net in 2003? It also included things dating from before the term France even existed (I’m pretty sure that France didn’t exist in the times of Julius Caesar).

As for “laugh it off and carry on”, that was also the tactics my parents told me to use against bullies. It never worked. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: it gives you a reputation for being an easy target.

And let’s face it, most people posting the “Cheese-eating surrender monkey” on the net really believe that it’s true.

BTW, the italian americans faced a similar problem way back in the seventies, with all the Mafia references. They didn’t take it lying low. They organized and got results. Now, no comedian would dare do a joke linking an italian american with the mob. Maybe we should do the same.

Just how low will those French haters go ?

“”well, look let’s try to keep this perspective, at least they’re not as bad as a cheese-eating surrender monkey heat wave.””
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2010/05/dont-throw-out-the-bibi-with-the-bathwater-cry-the-voices-of-freedom.html

It’s a completely unwarranted and out of the blue low blow. How do the people at Vanity Fair think it’s ok to print that ?

Wow Barney – that’s cutting close to the bone. It’s not the Ministry of Culture who should be involved but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During the 2003 anti-French psychosis, the official policy was something akin to “faire le dos rond” – hoping all this would blow over. Seven years later, pop culture has absorbed anti-French attitudes and ideas likes never before.

THAT is the kind of article that should be passed on everywhere on the internet ! Thanks for the article.

On a side note have you heard of this new book “Et si la France avait continué la guerre ?” (“What if France had fought on the war ?”) ?
It’s an alternative history that states perfectly that France COULD and SHOULD have continued to fight ! They start in  june 6th 1940 where Hélène de Portes, the mistress of Paul Reynaud (aka Prime Minister of France before the armistice) and one of the worst defeatists that ever lived is killed in a car accident 22 days before she did in reality.
From that point, hardliners such as de Gaulle or Mandel oust defeatists from the government. Of course it is too late to repulse the Germans, but it is decided to evacuate to North Africa as many troops, engineers, workers, raw materials, equipments as possible. Irrealistic ? Hell, no ! It was being planned just before Pétain took over ! And the result ? Well, it started in a website that is not completed yet, but the people behind this project have already discovered that the war would have been at least 6 months shorter ! And that France would’nt be still somewhat stuck in those painfuls debates like (“we were all resistants, no we were all collaborators”, etc…) And last but certainly not the least, “French surrender” crap would have never existed !
Somehow, I wish I was living in this alternate history…
here’s the links :

http://www.1940lafrancecontinue.org/

Oh, and sorry for the lenghty post !

Never – ever – apologize for your posts, we appreciate any relevant posts, especially anything historically relevant.

This post has not received anywhere near the traction that I expected. I guess life goes on with twitter, facebook, etc.

Fred, things are slow – thankfully – in the world of French bashing. However, I fear it might regain some attention in the near future with the World Cup, especially if we end up with nightmare scenarios …

Case in point … sigh

^^^
That coward Bruce Crumley would probably have called us arrogant if the French had been confident.
I bet he’s one f those people complaining about anti-Americanism in France.

[…] In 2006, even in Canada, we had to contend with snide comments from George Stroumboulopoulous (who never apologized) and Bob Magee at CHFI (who apologized graciously). […]

Anti-French garbage is now running wild on Twitter

I am thinking that the bashing is from the normal sources and is not any expansion into new frontiers.

I have to say that this year’s french soccer team doesn’t help us getting rid of French bashing…

Any preceived mistake or “failure” will be jumped upon. We just need to recognize this and do our best to push back like this website does.

goal.com

http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/67/world-cup/2010/06/21/1987037/world-cup-roundup-day-10-the-french-decide-to-surrender

Michelle Beadle of ESPN thinks surrender jokes are great.

Excerpt:
http://stadiumdrives.com/2010-articles/june/hot-or-not-the-beginnings-6-22-10.html

Not only are your soccer side falling apart in South Africa, basically surrendering to itself (surprise), but you had such an opportunity to steer the spotlight away from your idiocy on Sunday night.  Instead, French qualifier Gregory Havret, summed up what people the world over believe about you.  You are a smug and entitled people with little respect for anyone else.  And your food sucks.  Havret, fresh off a lovely run at the US Open to finish second, spent his entire post match interview whining about missed putts and talking about how good he really was, not once congratulating first-time Major-winner Graeme McDowell.