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

They've got a better kicker than us

We've got a better kicker than them. Unfortunately, he's out of the side injured at the moment.

RF

Funnily enough, the best people to ask are the French themselves.

Like many cultures, the French will defend themselves staunchly against all comers - outre-manche, outre-atlantique, or just generally 'outre'!

But if you get into a discussion among friends at the zinc of the local bistro, they spend most of the time telling each other exactly what *they* think is wrong with France, and their fellow countrymen/women.

just my

>> telling each other exactly what *they* think is wrong with France, and their fellow countrymen/women. <<

I wonder if the subject of armpits ever crops up?

RF

what's REALLY wrong with the French?

Peace treaty of Versailles

I wonder if the subject of armpits ever crops up?????

exactly what i was talking about! 100% b***ocks! i had a dutch girlfriend once who didn't shave (nothing unhygienic about that in any case) but all the frenchwomen i know do.

Peace treaty of Versailles???

you know, the british burned down the white house once, but we managed to GET OVER IT!!! the germans don't worry about the rape of versailles anymore, why should you, dave?

I have to agree with you 100% about the armpits.

I don't think the treaty itself is what is wrong with the french - but I do think it perfectly characterizes their major flaws.

1) It is arrogant - in order to inflict such harsh penalties on the "loser" (who was albeit the aggressor) is akin to being a poor winner in sports. This requires arrogance, and a lack of compassion or pity.

2) It demonstrates an ill-conceived notion of "self" - imposing those harsh penalties implies that the French should be able to enforce them - but history had just demonstrated that by themselves, the French weren't going to be able to that. In essence, it clearly demonstrates that the French had a much too high opinion of themselves.

The Treaty of Versailles was imposed by the victorious powers, not just France. Britain and the USA bear some responsibility for that one I'm afraid.

yes, but the French were disapointed that the Americans wanted them to be more lenient.

Be that as it may, the finished product was accepted by the other powers. Anyhow, don't you think it's only natural that France, sharing a boundary with Germany and more affected by the war than Britain or the US, desired harsher terms than they did?

them desiring harsher terms is natural...it is the harshness, in an absolute sense (coupled with their inability to enforce them) that is what makes it a uniquely French treaty.

"arrogant"..."high opinion of themselves"...

i'm an american, and i think that describes us to a T. the french these days are rather "éffacés".

a word about the treaty of versailles: (i did my BA paper on the continuity of agression between the two world wars, so i'm not just blowing this out my magic twanger...) french desire for revenge WAS the driving force behind its severity. unfair, cruel, stupid, it was the major cause of the rise of the n***s (no profanity on hootoo, boys and girls!) and of WWII. the english showed their usual nonchalance about european affairs, and wilson, always the professor, spent his efforts on the league of nations (which the US didn't even adhere to, "la belle blague"...) rather than the equitable treaty which would have been a better guarantee of world peace (easy for me to say in AD 2005).

now the interesting part.: the success of the franco-german "rapprochement" in the last half century. when you consider that these two peoples have been fighting like cats and dogs for the better part of two millenia, it is a miracle. i guess france and germany learned their lesson (about time too!)

it was this lesson they tried to impart in the UN just before the latest iraq war, the second in what promises to be a long procession...

PS: wilkinson is clearly a better kicker than that scrubber michalak, but this kid yachvili looks like a comer...

Excellent points riotact. But why has the rapprochement been so succesful?

I wonder if it has anything to do with perceived external threats, eg soviet union initially, and then economic threats from Japan, China India, and even more recently the US itself. Uniting in the face of a common enemy?

Maybe as much as they can come up with differences between themselves, that is nothing compared to the differences they observe between themselves and the US, Japan, China, India...

And is there supposed to be something wrong with forming alliances to counter percieved threats?
Isn't that why the US and others founded NATO?

the sea change in franco-german relations did not begin as a response to an outside menace but to an inner one. DeGaulle and Adenauer realized that no progress of any kindwould be possible in europe as long as its two major nations were embroiled in constant agression.

in fact, relations with the outside world, the US, USSR, etc... is precisely where the positions of the two countries have been the most divergent.

only recently has the "common threat" consideration become important, and that threat, which has indeed further cemented france and germany, is not simply political or economic, it is social and cultural as well. i have many contacts in german companies who prefer to speak french (or decipher my poor german), even if it is more difficult for them than speaking english. one explained it to me this way: "by speaking french i am protecting german as well".

it is not america per se that is being rejected, but the nightmare of a monolithic world culture with only one language or one chain of coffehouses. if you're an american who doesn't consider a week in las vegas an acceptable substitute for seeing paris, rome and egypt, then we are fighting for YOU too!

Hmm, that is interesting. What made it so that DeGaulle and Adenauer were able to realize that Europe needed to progress? What kind of progress are we talking about? What made them visionaries? How did they get elected if they were willing to go against the tradition and history of aggression?

Although I think a weekend in Las Vegas has its place, the fact of the matter is that I've been to Paris and Madrid, and not Vegas, so far, and I'm much happier that I've had those opportunities and not the other way around.

Why do you have the impression that America wants to spread its culture? I don't really think that is the case. We want to sell, and since it has sold, we sell it. Then you get aggressive sales & marketing types who try to really push it, to make more money. But it's not based on a philosophical belief that our culture should dominate. It's a bunch of business types trying to make money. Don't group me with them, or think that I'm rooting for them at any time or place.

The trouble is a lot of what the US is selling is cultural - films, food etc
Of course its also our own fault that we prefer to see big budget Hollywood films rather than home produced stuff etc
You could say its globalisation we should be complaining about but the US is the driving force behind globalisation

What kind of progress are we talking about? not bashing each others heads in every chance you get, fo one thing. three major wars in 80 years is not really the best thing for neighbors to do!

the points you make about the spread of american culture are valid. but i am convinced that for most americans the inherent superiority of america and its culture, though not a "philosophical" belief, is deeply ingrained. european efforts to stem this tide are generally considered as childish, petulant, arrogant., and the general tone of this thread for most of its life has been very close to that fox potato, jonah goldberg, rush limbaugh train of thought.

i learned long ago to scrupulously avoid any invidious comparison between france and the US when back "home". my children learned the same lesson last year. when we moved back, their classmates simply couldn't accept that their being happy to leave the promised land of california for the wilds of darkest france.

i can't honestly condemn them. when i was 10, i thought the US government was very stingy not to simply decree the whole world as the united states, and let every man woman and child bask in the glory of being american.

What made Adenauer and De Gualle visionaries to make the change? How were they able to break the cycle? How did they get their policies passed?