French & US attitudes to each other: the view from the UK

Thanks. I enjoyed that! The part about the U.S. never forgiving President de Gaulle is particularly true. I was just at a dinner party the other night when I (again) heard a fellow American being indignant about those ungrateful French. Him: "So I said, just remember why you're not speaking German right now." I winced, because something like 3 generations have come to adulthood since de Gaulle, yet we can't move on to the pros and cons of current issues. Another angle: I think, politically, France will always want to distance itself a bit from the U.S. if only to draw a real distinction between itself and it's original target of scorn: the U.K. France and Britain had been fighting each other for centuries up until 1900. If tomorrow the U.K. suddenly became utterly distainful of all things American, I wouldn't be surprised if France suddenly adopted us. The European/American relationship is of unending interest to me.
Of course, it is all "only politics". As an American who has traveled to France a lot (10 or more times since 1976. I'm old.), I've never had a bad experience with the French, despite their prickly reputation and the fact that my high school French barely reaches the "horrible" level. In fact quite a few French have gone out of their way to be nice to me, a stranger.
Anyway, thanks for sharing the article. Very interesting.

When De Gaulle ordered all American troops out of France (which was mostly just staff attached to NATO), President Johnson gave a brilliant retort: "What about those who are buried in France?".

I disagree with the article on one key point, though:

"it was France, certainly not the old colonial master Britain, that gave the United States its political model, its republican ideals, its taste for liberty and revolution. The idealistic desire to export that revolution and that freedom, and watching that turn into conquest and colonialism, is not a uniquely French experience."

The author has his timelines wrong here. The US political model was based on the philosphy of Locke, Montesque and others, filtered through the experience with British-style Parliamentary procedings. The US Constitution preceded the onset of the French Revolution by two years (although the US Bill of Rights came two years after the French Declaration of the Rights of Man), and the War of Independence began almost 15 years before the French Revolution. If the US had modeled it's political system on the contemporary French example, rather than the British, we would have combined an inefficient monarchy with an impotent Estates General.

I was going to bring up the same point as TOM--the American Revolution came before the French Revolution.

But then, without the French, we never would have won the American Revolution. So WW II was a payback.

De Gaulle led by ego. For years, French children were taught that it was De Gaulle leading the free French with the Americans and British following that defeated the Nazis. De Gaulle was against the entire plans for D-Day insisting that his ideas (which is what Hitler also thought) were best and he should lead all men. All military leaders aligned with the Allieds recognized Eisenhower as the supreme commander--except, of course, for De Gaulle. He was himself in the role. Today, if you go to the French military museum at the Invalides, only twice in the entire WW II exhibit are the British or Americans even mentioned.

And as Tocqueville pointed out, in France, there is more of a let's let the government do it, while in America, it's more, lets just get it done. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just pointing out the difference.

For years, French was the international language of diplomacy and business. Today, it's English. The French see the English language taking over everything and they are trying to preserve their culture and heritage. Only the way they go about it makes them see somewhat arrogant and dismissing of others.

But when it comes down to one-on-one meetings with individual French citizens, I doubt any of this will matter. They will be happy to show off their country and help you get around. All they ask, is you at least "try" to speak French.

Why do some Americans go on about how the French are so protective of their language and we should basically humor them by trying to speak a few words.. like its almost the French are being too sensitive...when.. in fact....
Some Americans are JUST as defensive about their threatened language, steamed when they go to their corner grocer and can't communicate in Spanish..

Why do we often look at the differences instead of the similarities( and in a negative way). I get we have to respect and understand differences in others cultures and customs, but there is a segment who just judge and condem differences and similarities they do not like...

It is ironic though when traits like patriotism is mocked in another country , but celebrated in your own.

The French did help turn the tide during the American Revolution, but the type of people who make the stupid " they could be speaking German" poke NEVER seem to remember or acknowledge that.. it is so one sided.

I do want to say I believe it is merely a vocal minority who are 8sses this way,, I beleive and certainly have encoutnered more Americans who are NOT like that.. but as I said, the vocal minority can certainly leave a bad taste in ones mouth.

The French are actually quite wary of the government, as successive revolutions, rebellions and regime changes since 1789 have shown.

It is however to the state that they have a tendency to look to for a variety of things that generally Americans wouldn't; but bear in mind that the state is comprised of those who make it work and pay for it - in other words, the French themselves.

Think about it as two people going on holiday - the American travels around spending money as and when he needs to, sometimes getting great deals, sometimes finding himself in a small village at midnight with no hotel rooms available, and its raining. The Frenchman on the other hand pays for an all-inclusive package deal, and if there is a problem with the hotel room he can get it changed, because he has paid for the privilege. The service is good, but it leaves him with less spending money with which to buy souvenirs.

Both have a great holiday, because that's the kind of holiday they want to have.

Hi Ian,

I like your analogy of the different types of holiday. The important bit being that neither one is "THE BEST".

Also the point with the French helping out the US in the American Revolution and the US helping liberate France can be seen as payback was good to see.
I remember thinking (as a impartial Brit) that the "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" comments in the New York Post were harsh and though has nobody looked out into NY harbour and seen the Statue of Liberty recently? As in "I wonder where that came from?" LOL!

Steve.

Anybody else read "60 Million Frenchmen can't be Wrong" by Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow? An entertaining and insightful look at the differences.

Some Americans are JUST as defensive about their threatened language, steamed when they go to their corner grocer and can't communicate in Spanish..

It has something to do with my being in France LEGALLY.

But, anyway, it is English that is the Lingua Franca in the world today, not French and not Spanish.

Iain, I read that book and it gave me really good understanding of the French. They have their own way of doing things but lot of it is excellent stuff - metric system, best cheese in the world, great food, amazing fashion sence and so on.

They might have great food (I love boeuf au poivre) and good cheese, but the metric (French) system is ONLY another system of measurement. If it is better than the American it is not by very much.

As for the French reluctance to speak English to visitors, I have had this explained to me (and confirmed) by a number of native French), in the French culture, speaking correct French is considered a requirement. People who don't speak perfect French are "looked down on", considered inferior. The French transfer this paradigm to us. They think that we will look down on them for not speaking perfect English (like we care), so they are reluctant to speak their less-than-perfect English to us.

Lee not every Spanish speaker in States is there illegally,, but thats another thread, so won't go there.

Sorry, when in France I think YOU should speak French,, period. You are not there doing big business, you are a TOURIST there to experience another countries food, culture, customs, etc.. I am sick of english speakers whining about the language issue. When I went to Italy I went to a night course to learn a few basic Italian words, RESPECT , the other countries. I found it hard, and I did not partuicularily enjoy it, but I did it because it was the right thing to do.

PS More people speak Chinese then English or French.. should we learn Chinese ? Hell yes, if you are going there on vacation!

According to EU statistics, about half of people in Europe are bilingual and only a few are triligual, and yet for an American to travel in western Europe, and speak the language of the locals (German, French, Italian), they would have to be quadra-lingual.

On the western continent, only about 10% of non-German speakers speak German and only about 10% of non-French speakers speak French. It is even lower with Italian or Spanish. How do they get by? It's ingenious, ... they use English.

I once sat on the river bank in Germany and watched while a German dock master arranged a tour with a Chinese tour guide. They both spoke English. Afterward I just said to the German dock master, "English"? He just replied that it was the one language they both understood.

And, by the way, I kind of agree with you that we should only go where we speak the languge - it's certainly a far richer experience. That is why I never go to France or Italy. But, by that standard, not many Americans would be be going to Europe.

I am by no means a polylinguist. However, wherever I go, I try to learn a little bit of the native language just to get the conversation started. Almost without fail, the person I am talking to admits they know a little English and we make ourselves understood. (Between the BBC World Service, schools teaching English, the internet and our exported TV shows, it's rare to find anyone under say 40 who doesn't understand a little English.)

I'm not going to be in their country long enough to have to worry about being fluent.

It really comes down to attitude. By speaking a few words in their language, you're showing them respect.

There are a couple of different themes here that have little to do with each other.

1. Many European countries, like France and Germany, have organizations and societies that promote exclusive use of their languages and France especially has laws that forbid the use of English in ads, etc. They have a real fear that the language of French or German will be lost. America has nothing of the kind. English absorbs any words that come along and that seem like a good idea.

2. Having an official language in any country is normal. English is official in America. If you go to, lets say Miami, and every store or gas station you stop at, only Spanish is spoken, as in, no one speaks English, you begin to wonder where you are. This has not happened to me in Germany, that I cannot find someone who does not speak German. I cannot speak for France, but I doubt that this a problem there either. I am pretty sure that the thought of having a school teach in a different language other than French does not even occur to anyone. How many towns in America has this been discussed? Should we teach in Spanish, or god forbid, Eubonics?

3. Many smaller countries do have a problem with their languages being lost, places like Wales, or Luxembourg. It is important that English not completely take over these countries.

4. English is the international language of business and travel, and there is not a whole lot to argue about there. It just is. Learning a few words or phrases to use as you travel to a new country is admirable and desirable. Thinking that you should take language classes for every place you are traveling to, is a bit much.

5. Have never had any problems in any country I have gone to. I am polite, have learned a few polite phrases and am not afraid to laugh at my mistakes. Travel is about having fun and learning and exploring.

Thanks for this post, Steve! Wonderful piece, and a wonderful blog on contemporary Europe (I've just subscribed).

Call me an idealist, but I'm hopeful that in this new Century both nations can move past some of these issues. It's so true that historically speaking, France has had a tremendous impact on America that it seldom receives credit (or blame) for, i.e. back in the days of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison, one's positions on the desired nature of America's relationships with France or England really determined one's political allegiance, and hence helped to 'form' political parties in the US. And of course, without French help, whatever the nation's motives, in the Revolution, there is no American nation, period. Probably okay for us to expect a little gratitude for liberating France in WW II, but if so, seems to me we should give a little gratitude right back: without France, there's no way America would have been CAPABLE of liberating France in the '40s. What's the statute of limitations on gratitude? Don't know, but it's a new Century, and although France just won't be able to speak with the same level of influence and authority worldwide, for better or worse, than America, in many ways France has 'been there and done that'--and a little respect and listening on our part would be nice.

PS: Just before the long period of America's involvement in Vietnam, one could almost hear France say to the US, "Oh, jeez. Listen to us. We've already tried this. It's a nightmare. Don't do it. At least be careful. Please." I guess sometimes when you're King of the Hill, there are some things you just have to learn for yourself.

JO I who said one should take a language course to "completely learn a new languague" for a country one is visiting, I know I didn't say that. So to me your point is completely "daft" and frankly rude as I realize you were insinuanted that I was in fact the "daft" one as I was the only poster to mention that I had taken a course. Thanks, you sure are a sweetie, but I am not dense.

If you look at the relationship between the U.S. and France, it was really De Gaulle who started the French animosity towards the U.S. and we reciprocated.

Actually, I can see why the French would feel that the Americans are upstarts with no cultural refinement and not much history and suddenly the world should do everything the way they want it done. The French have the culture and the history to command respect and I feel that they have not always gotten the respect that they deserve. After reading 60 million French men... and Almost French, I understand better where they are coming from and the way they view the world.

Lee, you said: "the metric (French) system is ONLY another system of measurement. If it is better than the American it is not by very much. "

Actually, it is the system used by most of the world today and all of the scientific community. It is so much easier to use than our antiquated system because it is entirely based on the decimal system. If we would ever bite the bullet and convert (the Canadians did it a few years ago and it didn't result in bloodshed in the streets or economic collapse as some predicted) it would help our exports. Sorry, this is way off the topic.

I agree with Frank II formerly Franklin that "wherever I go, I try to learn a little bit of the native language...By speaking a few words in their language, you're showing them respect."

I wish I could pick up a new language easily, but I do well to speak a barely passable American.

It is so much easier to use than our antiquated system because it is entirely based on the decimal system.

Oh yeah? How many seconds in a minute? How many minutes in an hour? How many hours in a day? Time is the most important measurement we make. Almost everyone carrys a watch, but few carry a scale (for measuring length) and far fewer carry a weighing instrument, and yet time is not decimalized.

"it is the system used by most of the world today ".

But mommy, everyone else is doing it.

"it is the system used by ... all of the scientific community.

I consider myself a member of the scientific community. I can use the French system if I have to, but I don't usually. I took physics and chemistry in college, and the inside covers of both text books were covered with conversion factors (and none was 10!). The funny thing is, in nature, which science seeks to explain, virtually nothing, except measurements that we arbitrarily divide by 10, comes out an even multiple of 10. What's avogadro's number? What's the accelleration of gravity? 9.8 M/sec2; why couldn't science, in all of it's (metric) wisdom define the meter so that gravitational accelleration would be 10?

But don't get me started.

"yet time is not decimalized...." Not YET. :)

Norm, my point exactly!

The biggest improvement we could make in our measuring system would be to decimalize time, 10 hours a day, 100 minutes in an hour, 100 seconds in a minute. That would make the second 86.4% of what it is today. Not much of a change. Why don't we change, because we have so much invested in the current time system? Hmm, sound a lot like the reasons not to change from the American system to the French system.

Maybe we should create the "Freedom" system. ;)

I'm not even sure "based on 10" is a positive attribute.

Probably the highest tech area of our culture is computers, and everything is based on a "base2" number system, which converts easily to base8 or base16. Why do we use base10? Simply because we have 10 fingers and we have never really progressed beyond counting on our fingers. Computers have to spend time converting everything from the base2 system that they understand to a decimal system for the dumb people.

We need to move to a base8 numbering system (gee, that's what we do now with fractional inches). Maybe if we cut off the little fingers of every infant we could achieve this noble goal in a few generations.

"But mommy, everyone else is doing it. "

Very often a new idea catches on because it is superior to the old. Otherwise we would still be living in caves and eating our meat raw.

I have had this argument before. so all I will add is that the fact that everyone else has adopted the metric system must prove something of its usefullness.

You're exactly right Lee....it hasn't changed yet. But to say it won't simply because it hasn't isn't much of an argument. Logic dictates the decimal system is the easiest to use. Yes, we do have 10 fingers and 10 toes....why complicate things by using an arbitrary measurement based on the length of a king's foot? You obviously don't recall the old days of trying to figure out the UK's old L S and D currency system as you tried to figure out what it was in dollars (a measurement based on units of 10, you might note.) As you say, computers spend all their time converting back and forth from hexadecimal notation because we find it easier to work in units of 10. God help us if we have to convert to a hexadecimal system because the computers say we must! BTW, the choice of the hexadecimal system for computers has nothing to do with the "imperial" system of measurement and it's 1/8th inches, nor was it chosen in preference to the decimal system. Since all computers are based on the base-2 system (the switch being either On or Off), the best way to express larger values is use a power of two...hence 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. Unfortunately, 10 doesn't figure into that calculation.

Well said, Norm

I can't believe we're wasting space arguing this.

We tried to switch to the metric system years ago and it didn't take. Americans like the status quo.

And if you haven't learned this about America, we don't follow just because everyone else is doing it. We couldn't care less.

And, btw, if you look at most products bought in the U.S. today, the label has the weight, size, etc in both the "American" system and metric.

"why complicate things by using an arbitrary measurement based on the length of a king's foot?"

Is the meter, 1/10,000,000th of the distance between the north pole and the equator, on the meridian through Paris, easier to find than the king's foot? Is that at high tide or low tide? With or without ice on the North Sea?

Go to your lumber yard and ask for a 0.0555555m...x .1111111m.

Actually, since 1983 the meter has been defined as the "length travelled by light in a vacuum during 1/299792458th of a second" as I'm sure you know.
And, in 1790 Thomas Jefferson proposed that the US adopt a decimal based system of measurement which failed passage in the US Congress by one vote. But I agree that this discussion is ludicrous.

"And if you haven't learned this about America, we don't follow just because everyone else is doing it. We couldn't care less." More's the pity.

Lee, you can argue you all you want, and you can always tilt things to make it seem reasonable, but as someone who grew up with the Imperial measurement system in Canada, and then having to switch to metric and go through all the upheavel,, ,, I have to tell you Metric does make more sence. Its a shame America doesn't get on board with the rest of the world.

My kids howl with laughter when I tell them about the "old system" with "feet" and "yards" and "tablespoons" ,, all very quiant and silly sounding to them.

As long as both systems work where is the problem? I generally use metric except when estimating short distances, which I do in feet (up to about 150 feet, then I find it easier to use metres - don't ask me why).

The main thing is to use either one system or the other when calculating something really important, as I seem to remember that a very expensive Mars probe was lost because some people who ought to have known better got their different systems mixed up. What a silly mistake, I mean it's not exactly rocket science is it!

Frank II, regarding what you wrote about how De Gaulle started the animosity between the United States and France, it's actually more complicated than that. For a long period of the war, the United States actually recognised the Vichy government (and not De Gaulle's government in exile, in London). At the time of the landings in southern Europe Eisenhower had entered into certain agreements with Admiral Darlan, who openly harboured Nazi sympathies, while blatantly ignoring De Gaulle - who for all his faults, was certainly no Nazi. This explains to an extent De Gaulle's subsequent attitude towards Britain and the U.S. (not to say that he didn't have a "difficult" personality to begin with perhaps!).

Just to celebrate my 1000th post, here is a gem of an item from BBC news that I thought might fit well on this thread.

http://digg.com/d1o34b