Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives[edit]

Previous discussion:

Syria[edit]

Now that France stands alone with the US on Syria, perhaps the anti-French sentiment will decrease and Americans will know who their real friends are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.2.178 (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New France[edit]

It would be interesting if we could explain part of the Anti-French sentiment in the US through ancient roots going all the way up to New France, during the various French-British colonial wars. Part of this also explains the historical anti-Catholic frenzy in the country, since many French settlers of that period were devout Catholics. For instance, there was a great deal of anti-French turmoil after the 1774 Quebec Act, which gave various social rights to conquered settlers. The association between anti-Catholic and anti-French feelings is much less clear today, however, because the Québécois and the French have become very secular. Another issue is the historic discrimination against various native French-speakers in the United States such as Cajuns in Louisiana and Texas or francophone migrants in the states of Maine, Michigan, Illinois, Oregon, Idaho, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Wisconsin. ADM (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge Masonry vs. Grand Orient Masonry[edit]

Another possible source of anti-French sentiment is the historic separation between Grand Lodge and Grand Orient Masonry, something which became noticeable in many areas where Masonry has been influential, such as politics and public life in general. After the 1877 masonic schism, the Grand Lodges began to promote an anti-France ideology, while the Grand Orients became very anti-American and anti-British. A similar division is also noticeable in the field of philosophy, which has long been split along the lines of analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. ADM (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very cryptic to me. I really wonder how an event that involved limited circles of people could have any widespread effect on the us public. Anyway you need a source to support this point. Gede (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War[edit]

It's funny how France's involvement in the achievement of America's revolution got one paragraph of space. America would be Britain if the unorganised militia's had continued to fight on their own. It was because of the assistance of France that everything in America is there.--GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about France and U.S diplomatic relations : it is about the hostility toward France in the US. The French involvement in the America's revolution is relevant only in so far as it has some bearing on this issue. Gede (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting not that the article mentions nothing of De Gaulle's repeted spurning of US assistance after the war, his ejection of US forces later on in the sixties. One of the best, but least publicized quotes of LBJ came as a result of De Gaulle's insistance that "All American Forces" vacate France to which LBJ responded: "Well what about all our dead boys over there? You call him and ask him? Ask him if were supposed to dig them up and bring them back too!!"
While the French contributed imensely to American cause during the revolutionary war, America overwhelmingly contributed to the liberation of France (in the form of massive amounts of war material to the allies.) Britian contributed significantly in areas of man power, however most of the raw materials, and a large portion of the weapons used in the liberation of France were provided by the United States. --TANK0133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.7.170 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you know anything about the French, they're about sovreignty and independence. America wasn't a belligerent during the war therefore had little right to settle afterward e.g. we're still in Germany because we won and they lost. It's nothing personal that a country doesn't want to be occupied. Thousands of Americans have died in Iraq but the parliament wants us out. Time's up, it's time to go.
Anti-American sentiment derives from the complete disregard for the French loss of life during WWII. No French hero is ever portrayed, and Americans never hesitate to release worldwide a film having to do with a soldier who killed a lot of Nazis to protect tattered French townswoman. Americans glamorize a bloody war while the French solemnly reflect in peace. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pommes frites[edit]

Nb: French for French fries is frites (casual) or pommes frites (formal). David.Monniaux (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Racism?[edit]

Why does this article link to "Racism" in the "See Also" section? Seeing as being French is a nationality and not a race, I find it unnecessary and offensive to have this article imply otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.187.109 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libya[edit]

Not sure why the denial of overflight rights for the 1986 raid on Libya is consigned to the very last sentence of the article -- in fact, the reaction against this launched anti-French political activism in the modern period in the United States (as opposed to vague cultural prejudices or diplomatic frictions between Foggy Bottom and the Quai d'Orsay). In the aftermath of the raid, there were rallies and demonstrations involving the burning of French imported objects, a number of anti-French jokes in the opening monologs of late-night TV talk-show hosts, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libya again (2016)[edit]

I really don't know why the French denial of overflight rights to UK and US planes conducting the 1986 Reagan raid on Libya is omitted from this article. In fact, it should be given due prominence on this article, since the very vocal protests and reaction against it were the launching pad for somewhat "modern" Anti-French sentiment in the United States (as opposed to grievances left over from WW2 or the 1960s). AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn[edit]

It's a shame you decided to ditch this paragraph. I am a French migrant living in Australia and I believe I have a grasp on both the Gallic and Anglo-Saxon mindsets. This issue definively has an impact on the relations between France and the USA. I will endeavour to review the wikipedia guidelines and get to the bottom of the offending issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdeshayes (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's fine, but please reliably-source its anti-French sentiment first. Rostz (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorrow and the Pity[edit]

Under the Post-World-War-II section of the article, there is a paragraph about a French documentary called "The Sorry and the Pity," pasted below:

"elations improved somewhat under de Gaulle's successors, but tensions reappeared intermittently. In 1969 a French documentary Le Chagrin et la Pitié, English translation The Sorrow and the Pity, brought back an earlier issue. This documentary indicated that the French may not have resisted the collaborating Vichy government as much as many Americans had believed or hoped. The film proved controversial in France, but it primarily aimed at simply encouraging honesty about antisemitism in France's history rather than inspiring any anti-French hostility. It is likely that few Americans even saw the film."

The statement at the end ("It is likely that few Americans even saw the film") seems rather charged and biased. Given that the film was nominated for an American Academy Award, it seems likely that AT LEAST a few Americans (e.g. the Academy) saw the film. I added a Citation Needed tag since I'm rather new to editing Wikipedia, and didn't want to step on any toes. But does anyone else think this section (and moreover the entire article) could use a slightly more neutral rewrite? Or, at the very least, that the article should rely on facts rather than speculation about American documentary-viewing habits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.131.157 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I removed the sentence. - RoyBoy 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed[edit]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag Restored[edit]

This article is very biased, and an attempt to label a reaction to French xenophobia as "xenophobia."

I remember the Gaullist anti-American campaign very personally, as a young journalist in Paris, and very vividly. Later, I became aware of de Gaulle's secret "all azimuths" orders to French nuclear forces, by which the United States became a target of his obnoxious "force de frappe."

The French were told, and believed, many things during that era, and since -- that General de Clerc and his division liberated France, that Americans were stupid and uncultured, etc., etc. I believed then, and still do, that most of it was simply de Gaulle having his personal revenge over imagined slights during his years in England. (The Americans and the British agreed that he was an arrogant and impossible man.)

I fully realize that Wikipedia is supposed to be "owned" by the radical left -- many articles on alleged historical events have no resemblance to anything that actually happened on the ground. I know of one article that is based on an alleged historical event that never even happened at all. But that excuses nothing.

French behavior toward the United States (and Israel) was, for decades, xenophobic, narcissistic, and incredibly mercenary. A reaction to that sort of behavior is not xenophobia, but payback.68.5.46.193 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that radical left-wingers on Wikipedia are insisting on sympathetic coverage of Gaullism? john k (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Wikipedia "owned" by the radical Left? Are you serious with that? I've heard people from the radical Left say that Wikipedia is Libertarian. But it seems to me that it has no coherent bias one way or another. And this gem? "A reaction to that sort of behavior is not xenophobia, but payback." Claiming that everyone in an entire country acts in one certain way and therefore has to be "paid back" for it is THE DEFINITION of xenophobic bigotry. And the entire concept of "payback" is such a juvenile notion that a 3rd grader could explain to you why it's wrong. RyokoMocha (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand. What has Israel to do with the relations between the American people and France?

Deletion of article?[edit]

I am not a member of Wikipedia users, but I find it difficult to imagine how an issue such as this could possibly remain unbiased. The title itself is a bit unusual for a site which I assume is supposed to act as close to an encyclopedia as possible. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.55.151 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The previous version was outdated, had an essay tag and contained rather fringy assumptions, e.g. about France and USA being allies fighting (and loosing) together 1812. The French lost then in Russia, but not in Canada, and it was the failure of Napoleon, that helped to improve US-GB relations mostly. Serten (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lewis' Légion d'honneur[edit]

I really don't know why Jerry Lewis' Légion d'honneur award has been removed from the article again. It's not a political grievance as such, but it's something which has given rise to a lot of comment and cultural stereotyping (see Weird Al's "Genius in France" etc. etc. etc.).. AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-French sentiment in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to articles tied with the subject : "War in Iraq", "Freedom Fries", "Opposition to the War in Iraq", etc.[edit]

Anti-French resentment motives should be updated with the post-2003 moves against France not being a part of the 2003 War in Iraq. I remember very clearly these French-hating feelings were skyrocketing at this time with slogans like "Freedom fries" or "first Iraq then Chirac" and so on. With no doubt this article should include references or redirects toward articles dealing with this, most notably "Freedom Fries", "War in Iraq", "Opposition to the War in Iraq", "UN Security Council and the War in Iraq", etc.128.79.169.207 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence[edit]

Hello I think there's a problem with this sentence at the beginning of the article: 'As with any other xenophobia, Francophobia in the can be distinguished from rational criticism of France'. Darakaru (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've suppressed a lot of things in the introduction, what's left is sourced with this : https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/beyond-freedom-fries-the-roots-of-american-francophobia/256253/ Darakaru (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Won't fight for jews[edit]

Anit-french sentiment is based around perceived French unwillingness to fight against germans during WW2. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.207.100 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong. Please open a book sometimes in your life. SwaxawS (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has very little to do with Jews, but the "surrender monkey" thing, insofar as it's based on anything at all, is based mainly on France undergoing two catastrophic military collapses in the last century and a half, in 1870 and 1940. In both cases the German military forces were superior to the French, but before each war, they did not seem so dramatically superior that one would expect the collapse which occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is one sided[edit]

This article is greatly one sided. France and the French have overall been greatly received by the American people, despite the exceptions this article focuses on and exaggerates. As such, this article comes off acutely anti-American and like a prolonged opinion piece, with dozens of citations missing. This article needs much work. e.g. There is no mention of the Statue of Liberty, France's gift to the United States. Lafayette, the French hero of the American Revolutionary War and close friend of George Washington is not mentioned either. There is no mention of D-Day and how the Americans were welcomed by the French and how both the Americans and French embraced each other during WWii as they fought Hitler, their common enemy. This article also doesn't mention how Americans visit France more than any other country, save maybe Italy. The article title has been changed to a neutral and more encompassing title. Hope others will join in the effort in making this article more balanced and objective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's within scope for the title, according to article title policy. The article France–United States relations already exists, and maybe some of the content you envision could be added there. In addition, articles with titles of the form, "Anti-FOO sentiment" are quite common at Wikipedia; see for example, this list of dozens of such articles. WP:NPOV is not an issue in such articles, because they are within scope for the title. Other articles may exist with the contrary viewpoint, or for a broader scope. For example: articles such as Anti-Catholicism in the United States, or Anti-Semitism in the United States, are not NPOV based solely on their titles; they might be based on their content, but that's a separate issue. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over[edit]

This article should be reduced to a stub with a definition and a couple of references, and be rebuilt from scratch.

It has had a rocky history, with massive amounts of unsourced material, and previous attempts to improve it, including this edit which dropped 80% of the article, while introducing some additional material. There is also confusion about what the article is about; there is already the article France-United States relations about diplomatic and governmental relations; the topic of this article is about public sentiment. I just dropped some irrelevant material in a few sections, but it's looking more and more like a lost cause, and rather than just nibbling at the edges, perhaps more radical surgery is needed.

Blowing up an article and starting over is a radical move, and this is only the third time in over a decade where I thought it was worth doing (the other two articles are the better for it). As it is a radical move, in my opinion, it's a bit too WP:BOLD to do unilaterally, so I'm pinging top contributors (@Gwillhickers, AnonMoos, ADM, Polentarion, 68.5.46.193, Rostz, PubliusJ, 165.201.7.170, and 128.79.169.207:; and also at Anti-French sentiment: @Tobby72, EtherealGate, Truth or consequences-2, and Marskell:) and I'll notify a couple of projects. There are 119 page watchers, so hopefully, this will generate some feedback.

One of the things that became clear in previous blow-it-up discussions, was that starting over does *not* mean there's nothing currently in the article worth saving. I would say that several sourced paragraphs have useful information that is worth keeping. It's more that the current structure and [dis-]organization get in the way of improving the article, and it would be easier to start over from scratch, and re-add that material back in later. Think of an old, dilapidated house in ruins and in danger of collapsing, that still has a few fine pieces of old furniture in it that are well worth keeping. Do we tear out the walls, floor, roof, and foundation and try to somehow construct a new house around the furniture without moving it? No; we move the furniture into storage, bulldoze the house, build a new foundation and structure, and move the pieces back into the new rooms (sections) when they're ready for it. That's what I'm proposing here; the good bits can be moved to Talk (or just retrieved later from History) while a new, rationalized section and subsection structure is built; when appropriate, they can then be placed into the proper sections in the new article framework.

Note that an alternative would be to just WP:MERGE this article into Anti-French sentiment#United States, or drop it and turn it into a redirect, and I can see valid arguments for either one. Among the three possibilities (TNT, Merge, Redirect) I'm not sure which one is best. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the article indeed needs a major rewrite, mostly because of POV and neutrality issues, however. The name of the article should be French and American relations, where both the good and bad issues are outlined. To simply write an article that ignores half the historical relations between these two great countries presents flagrant neutrality and POV issues. It's amazing that such a title was ever allowed to begin and persist. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a discussion worth having; but this discussion is about something else, namely whether to blow it up and start over. Hopefully a link here to your discussion above will spur readers coming to this one, to leave some feedback there, as well. Comments below, should be about whether to blow it up, merge, or redirect. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at: WT:FRANCE, WT:Discrimination, and Talk:Anti-French sentiment. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • I think we need to start by establishing whether or not this article should exist, and although sources exist I don't think it's a shoe-in, as there may only be enough for a section in Anti-France sentiment or coverage in France-United States relations. I'd say merge it unless someone successfully argues otherwise. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source in JSTOR (French Politics, Culture & Society Vol. 21, No. 2, Special Issue: Déjà Views: How Americans Look at France (Summer 2003) ) about "the negative American view", and incorporated into the article but then I don't know if a journalist such as Friedman's "attacking" France is just how nations often "slam" each other with journalists leading the way. Not sure if this should be a separate article or be merged. I don't know what is anti-French versus criticism.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Eloquent Peasant:, thanks. That last point is a good one: what should the scope of any of the numerous "Anti-FOO sentiment" pages be? That question should probably be bumped up to a page with a broader scope, but I'm not sure where that should be. I guess my initial first-blush feeling, is that because sentiment has both the sense of "opinion" as well as "feeling" or "attitude", it's maybe one click less reasoned than "argument", "position", and so on, and thus less rational. We should move this part of the discussion, though, as I think it's one well worth having. Perhaps at WikiProject Discrimination? (I'll create one there if you don't, but you deserve first refusal.) Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: Go ahead and create one there, if you like. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Mathglot -- thanks for mentioning me, but I'm an extremely minor contributor to the article itself. I mainly have just argued for the inclusion of certain things -- the French denial of overflight rights to the 1986 U.S. raid on Libya and the awarding of the Legion d'Honneur to Jerry Lewis -- which may be relatively minor incidents in the long history of overall France-U.S. relations, but were influential in shaping current-day negative perceptions of France in the United States. It's a little annoying that neither one is currently included on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos:, anybody can opine on the topic, minor-contributor or not; the ping list was more about appropriately notifying some users to get something going here. To your points: yes, I remember both of those issues, one is more of a long-term thing (Jerry), the other a more temporal response to an incident (overflights). Either or both of those could be added after a restart, and at this point, I'm mostly interested in garnering support for the idea of starting over, because that is something that undoes a lot of editor time and effort, and shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Otoh, if it's a way to improving the article (which I think it is) and there's support (or at least, no objection for a WP:BOLD move, which after all, can be reversed) then it should be considered as a possible pathway forward. That's kind of where I am, right now. Mathglot (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or blow up - merge it with Anti-French sentiment unless that would make the Anti-French sentiment article too long. Problem is, we don't know how long merging it would make it because we don't know the length of 'this' article once it has been cleaned up. I think blow this up, then depending on how it ends up (after it's cleaned-up)... then you can decide if it should be merged into the Anti-French sentiment article or kept as a separate article. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An editor who contributed a lot to the article Raymond arritt is no longer with us (may he RIP). --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

blow it up per The Eloquent Peasant's comments. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it It's fine the way it is right now, just find the missing citations to improve the article, that's not complicated. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States&oldid=1204891979"