h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wellingtons army at Waterloo included more Germans, Belgians and Dutch than British troops
it took the British, Prussians, Russians, Austrians, Spanish and assorted minor nations to defeat Napoleon
as for WWI don't recall the Russians, US, British or Italians invading Germany either
I'm not sure having a reputation as militaristic bullies is a good thing but the french had 1 for a lot longer than the US has had theirs

Dave, if you don't think french soldiers in 1914-1918 were wimps because they didn't get to berlin, you clearly know nothing about WWI. it was BRUTAL.

about WWII: it shouldn't be inferred from the rapid victory of the wehrmacht that the french army just laid down in front of them. they lost more soldiers in those 6 weeks than the US did in the year between d-day and v-e day. they were poorly led, prepared and organized, but certainly not cowardly. not to mention twice that many who died fighting a suicidal battle in the resistance. in all as many frenchmen gave their lives in WWII as americans on all theaters, even not counting a quarter million civilian casualties (mostly from US bombardments).

to call such a nation "surrender monkeys" is not only inaccurate, it is obscene.

can you show me, where in my post, I called them surrender monkeys?

dave and alec
I'm sorry to tell you that you didn't understand anything of the "headscarves law" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was against this law and i'm still !! but for a lot of reason that are different coz this law is not what you said it was : this law is not rascist and has nothing to do with the Jim Crow's laws!!
it deals with secularism which is something very important in a democracy and in a republic!!!(but that english and americans still haven't heard about; should i say that USA today = france in 1904 ie before the secularist law)
but this law wasn't made by a rascist : the same man who did that law has now proposed that a law should be made especially about islamism ...
to make it possible that mosque are built with taxes that is to say that all frenchs, whaterver their religion is, would pay to built islamics places of prayer whereas it is forbidden to use tax money to build churches
And if france was anti islamic, they would have declared war on islamics countries wouldn't they?

errr...if french secularism is so important, and this law champions it, how come the original proponent of the law is now championing a wildly anti-secular law eg. using government money build mosques?

Is this an example of french logic in action?

That's rather logic actually, but one have to have some history knowledge to understand it, so let me explain you :
The separation of church and State took place in 1905. From that year on, using government money to build religion's places was forbidden.
However, in 1905, many catholic, protestant and jews churches or temples had been built (with government money coz France was supposed to be "christianisme eldest daughter").
As a consequence, nearly each town, even the smalliest ones have a church and in big towns there are beautiful cathedrals. But there are only a few mosque.
So muslims have got very few place to pray whereas catholics have got a lot which is unfair.
Secularism is important but equality is also important; that's why this law has been proposed. It hasn't been voted yet, though, because the man championning this law is not the minister in charge of stuff like buildings.

So your secularist principle is only sacrosanct when it suits you?

The only problem with your attempt at equality is that you passed the first law, and the second one is going to get buried. All your good intentions won't count for squat, because at the end of the day, muslims will be persecuted for their headscarves AND left with no mosques.

There's nothing wrong with the French that a massive dose of Ritalin won't cure.

They can't seem to focus on certain questions.

Just try asking a frenchy why German isn't their national language.

>> So your secularist principle is only sacrosanct when it suits you? <<

I think this is what sums up "What's wrong with the Fr*nch" completely: obey international law? Only when it suits them...not test nuclear weapons? Only when it suits them...

RF

I was against both laws but however, the first one achieved equality because before the law, it was up to the "director" of the schools and high schools to decide wether a girl could come in with her headscarf or not (in my high school, you weren't allaowed to wear anything on head _ hat, cap, veil ...), but obviously the girls could sue and they often win which was one of the problem the law was trying to solve
But the more important thing is that you're speaking of a situation you don't know anything about. 2 of the problems that the law wanted to solve : 1)many girls didn't want to wear the headscarves but were forced to by their families. Many muslim girls and women stood strongly in favor of the law because it gives them a pretext not to wear the headscarves at school.
2)many other girls wear the headscarves as a provocation. "my headscarf is like a flag" said one muslim girl. For instance, 2 girls whose parents were jews began to wear the veil when they made their teenager crisis. Or in my university, one girl didn't wear it but one day, someone asked her why she didn't and from that day on she weared it.
" muslims will be persecuted for their headscarves" WRONG muslims aren't persecuted !!!!!! they can wear the veil whereever they want exept in schools for kids (i e it's allowed in universities). in those schools, the director come to explain them why it isn't allowed and there is a special room where they can take it off and put it back at the end of the day. that's not what i would call persecution, most of them now admit that everything went on well.
and what about foreigners having to swear on the Bible if they want to become american, or having to swear on the Bble on many occasions actually.
One more important thing is that however,

If you want to protect muslim women who are being forced to wear headscarves, then why not enact a law that directly tackles that issue? Strengthen equality rights for women, and their protection under the law. That is a lame excuse to enact the headscarves law.

The only reason to find what someone else wears on their own head provocative is if you are intolerant of other people being different. So the headscarf law is protecting intolerance ... that is why it is just like the Jim Crow laws of the US.

its not just like the Jim Crow laws as they affected almost every area of life, it is wrong but then there are things wrong in every country, why do you expect the French to be perfect Dave ?

"Just try asking a frenchy why German isn't their national language"

you speak to a lot of frenchys, retired? spend a lot of time in the country? you seem to know more about it than i do, i've only lived here 15 years...

every june 6th, every american grave in normandy gets a red rose. and here's an anecdote for you: my dad was a GI in france in 1944. one day he stopped outside an engraver's shop to admire the brass plaques in the window. the shopkeeper called him in, asked him his name and made him one on the house.

things like that were common then. what's interesting is that that plaque is on my front door now, and i get lots of compliments on it, since beautiful hand engraved plaques like that are rare these days. when i tell my neighbors the story behind it, they get a little choked up.

being an american in france has been nothing but advantages for me. professionally and socially i have benefited, unfairly really, from the immense respect and gratitude the french feel towards americans.

you think discriminating against a whole class of people is a minor imperfection blackberry? What was the holocaust, a few murders that regular law enforcement could have handled?

That is a ridiculous comparison Dave.

Remember, the French nation is not 'one nation under god'. It has a rigorous separation of church and state, fought for by people who wanted to stop the Catholic church monkeying with the way the country was run.

Building a few mosques to correct a historical inequity does not invalidate a policy that goes back a hundred years.

sprout

Fine, if that's the case sprout, then building a few mosques doesn't make up for targeting muslims with the headscarf law.

i refer you to my post 597.

the issue of the hijab in france is a very complex one. to interpret this law as "targeting muslims" is so simplistic as to miss the entire debate.

i don't say people outside of france have no right to an opinion on the issue, but based on the misconceptions and innaccuracies that are rife in the world press, i feel it is near impossible for them to form an informed opinion on a question that is so difficult for the french themselves, both christian and muslim, to see in black or white.

My point was that there were many muslims in favor of the law ! And the law was to protect girls more than women who are adults and who can therefore choose to rebel against the headscarf tradition if they are against it.

And about the provocation, I was agree with you until I heard some muslim girls telling that they wear the headscarf as a "flag" (ie as a way to say I prefer the muslim flag to the french flag).
And some muslim organistions explain that muslim should comply to the republic laws as far as they weren't in contradiction with the islamic laws, which means that they can refuse to obey the republic laws just because they are muslim.

Ant again I tell you that it only touch schools and that most girls agreed to take their headscarf when entering the school.
And you didn't reply to my question about muslims or other believers of any non christaianic religion having to swear on the Bible in many cases or to see their president or representatives doing it?

my children just did a half year at school in the US.

i have never sought to influence them about faith and want them to make up their own minds about god; my 10 year old has made up his mind that god is like santa claus (my 7 year old too i guess, she believes in both). as such i do not appreciate them having to pledge allegiance to "one nation under god" every morning, which in my day was considered unconstitutional (the "under god" part).

up to now, my contributions to this wonderful thread have been to defend the french against ignorant criticisms which are generally unadulterated b***ocks.

but there IS a good deal wrong with the french, even if folks whose acquaintance with french culture comes from the "national review" have no idea what it might be.

let's start with the considerable quantities of dog feces one finds on the sidewalks of my neighborhood!

the provenance of this excrement is one of the mysteries of nature. although everyone, including dog owners, agrees that it is obscene and disgusting, and that the laws against it should be scrupulously obeyed and rigorously enforced, these fragrant gifts from man's best friend are omnipresent.

walking around this sunday (the motorcycle poop patrol only works M-F) the average distance between "deposits" was definitely less than 10 feet. i stopped counting at 100, i'm sure the total in a 4 block area would have been 3 or 4 times that.

does anyone else out there know what's really wrong with the french? i'm not talking about the rainbow warrior or the headlines of the NY Post... i'm asking people who have a clue... anyone?