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

Apropos of nothing, just curious.

One might as well ask why, apropos of nothing, the (say) Germans and Italians are so different.

To which the answer is: how long have you got?

1. Heritage: we're mostly Anglo-Saxon, they're not.
2. Population density: same number of people, one country twice the size of the other.
3. Climate: they've got Alps, rivieras and vineyards. We've got drizzle.
4. Language: our language is acquisitive, flexible and complex. They are protectionist of theirs to the point of ridiculousness, which is why fewer and fewer people bother to learn it.
5. Government: their aristocrats were stupid, ours were canny. We remain a constitutional monarchy while they are a republic.
6. History: we win wars. Against them, to a large extent.

One could go on at length, and I'm sure others will...

SoRB

"6. History: we win wars. Against them, to a large extent."

Off-topic: put "Frenhc military victories" into Google and press the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

Ahem: "French military victories", obviously.

Oh yes, that *was* good

More seriously, it depends upon what you mean by different. To your average Japanese or Innuit we're probably very similar in comparison to them

Me thinks that

The French have their heads stuck up their own a*se

The English have their heads stuck up everybody elses a*se

Cheers Elentari



SoRB, some of your answers show that there is a difference but don't say *why* eg
6. History: we win wars. Against them, to a large extent.

I suppose I was wondering what the historical reasons were (of which you have mentioned several) and I started thinking about the differences between Australians and NZers which are there but don't seem nearly as marked. Presumably this is because both countries are so young and because both countries were colonised by the same people by and large.

Which is a roundabout way of saying I'm ignorant enough about European history to not have a good grasp of why the French and English are so characteristically different. I'm guessing ethnicity is the biggest influence but don't really understand the historical subtleties.



>>More seriously, it depends upon what you mean by different. To your average Japanese or Innuit we're probably very similar in comparison to them<<

Orcus, the question is definitely coming from the Antipodes. I realise it probably seems a bit strange to some.

We have had so many wars against them I couldn't even name them all.

Back in the middle ages, for some reason our royal family felt they had a claim on the crown of France (I think it was due to Richard the Lionheart's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine - Aquitaine was a huge part of France and after her death it was passed down the Royal Family. They also had claims on the rest of France someone - maybe through marriage.)

Anyway, in support of this claim, many English kings went to war to try to get more land in France and defend the land they already had. Eventually we lost it all anyway.

They also have a different lfetyle to us, in terms of food and so on.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the claim to the throne of France by the English (and now Scottish) monarchs has never been formally dropped?

I think a large part of why England and France are so different is that both nations have spent a heck of a long time defining themselves as being not the other. Thereby effectively weeding out any similar traits.

"I think a large part of why England and France are so different is that both nations have spent a heck of a long time defining themselves as being not the other."

There's definitely something in that.

Isn't there a fleur de lis (sp?) in the Royal Coat of Arms or something, representing France?

"some of your answers show that there is a difference but don't say *why* eg
6. History: we win wars. Against them, to a large extent."

That one is a bit of both. It's an observation of an historical fact, but it'd also an explanation of our cultural difference.

The English (like, I'm reliably informed, the Japanese) have a culturally ingrained belief in their own intrinsic racial superiority over EVERYBODY, but in particular their nearest mainland neighbours, a belief based in part on the fact that despite being a tiny island nation we have historically regularly kicked their aases every time we've needed to.

The French, on the other hand, turn up to London on the train at Waterloo station. This is far from the only reminder they get, every day, that in the race to be the most culturally influential nation on earth, they lost. Poor sods, they even probably call the time they're spending in London "le weekend".

This leads the French to have the kind of frenetic, over-compensated inferiority complex you find in ginger step-children, and the English to have the kind of relaxed, easy confidence in themselves you find in fifteen year old six foot six prop-forwards who can lift their own fathers over their heads.

SoRB

"English to have the kind of relaxed, easy confidence in themselves..."

I don't think I'd really go so far as to say that. England, to be fair, does have a bit of a tradition of jingoism which doesn't really seem to be relaxed, easy confidence so much as desire to prove something - I'm sure we'll see some of it this summer. Perhaps it's connected to the point you mention about such a small nation taking on bigger ones and winning - the need to know it can be done, even when the two countries aren't even at war.

Elentari

The fleurs-de-lis were taken off around the 1800's i think, when the union with Ireland came into place, so the royal flag only carried then England, Scotland and Ireland arms. The fleur-de-lis on the royal flag lasted over 500 years though until then.

1801 to be precise, although check out the Queen's banner for Canada - that still has them.

"England, to be fair, does have a bit of a tradition of jingoism which doesn't really seem to be relaxed, easy confidence so much as desire to prove something "

Do not confuse the activities of a minority with the mindset of the majority.

If you ask, say, a Swede whether Sweden is the best place in the world to live, they'd probably sit a while and think. If you asked a Canadian about Canada, you'd probably get a similar response. If you asked someone from the USA, I doubt they'd think even for a second before saying "Hell yeah!".

But in England, I think you'd be met with blank incomprehension. We (and I realise I'm sticking my neck out speaking for a nation here) to a large extent simply wouldn't even understand the question. This isn't jingoism, I think, so much as a sort of mental equivalent of an Oxford lawn. I refer here to the well known story of the American tourist pulling the groundsman of an Oxford college to one side and demanding to know how he gets his lawns looking so perfect. The American says "I've tried everything on my lawn since I built my house, but they don't look like this. How do you do it?" The response is brief and withering... "It's very simple sir. You level the ground, seed it evenly... then roll it and mow it for five hundred years."

There's another factor: the French have been successfully invaded within living memory. There was an underground resistance, there were collaborators, the whole thing. The British haven't been successfully invaded for over nine hundred years, and we know it. That kind of thing has an effect on the psyche of a nation that is hard to predict or quantify, but easy to observe.

SoRB

<>

I take it you mean that England hasn't been invaded for 900 years, cos Scotland, Ireland and Wales certainly have.....

<>

Maybe it's because they were French aristocracy. They paid homage to the French kings until the 14th century, I think. And like any aristocracy, they probably felt from time to time it was their turn to be king. I'm sure Henry II had more land in France than the French king did at the time, and that his English lands (ie, the whole kingdom) weren't either as big or as productive as his French lands.

George III was the last English king to claim to be king of France, and gave it up, as someone said, in 1801. I think Gascony was owned by England into the 15th or 16th century. I don't think the Norman aristocracy really felt English for a few centuries after they got here.

Other than that, I think Britain being an island probably accounts for more of the difference than anything else, plus the population density and wars that SoRB mentioned.

I think the key is the word *successfully*. England has been invaded several times since 1066 but on all occasions the invaders were booted out.

I think the key word is 'British'.
In which case it is perfectly true statement.