Why do so many Americans hate French people? (UK, friendly, attractive)

[Mooseketeer]

Once again the French do not hate Americans. I am not sure where Americans get this opinion from . Disagreeing with your foreign policies ( which they do) does not mean anyone hates you.
Maybe I should change the title to "why do Americans dislike the French so strongly?" Delaney as you are of course right and hate is a very strong word. I have never had any Americans threaten me because I am French but I have certainly felt a deep antipathy towards me , especially after being friendly when they thought I was British !
And you are absolutely right CarolinaJack the French GOVERNMENT has been notorious for supporting many despots ( Saddam and African leaders in particular) for which most French people are deeply ashamed and indignant ( if you read the French press you might notice how they always criticize this and how French satirists have an absolute ball with any corruption).
The French GOVERNMENT isn't the French PEOPLE. Just as the US GOVERNMENT isn't its PEOPLE.
If you took a fisherman from Maine and a fisherman from Brittany they would have far more in common than the fisherman would have with a Parisian or a New yorker. They might not like to admit it but it's true.

Also as far as supporting despots the US Government has been pretty enthusiastic in that respect... All governments if there are lucrative contracts or oil at the end of it will jump at the chance of supporting the evil guys which blight people's lives.
Bush did not "liberate" Iraq because of a kind heart and a genuine for democracy. Iraq has OIL. Do you reeally believe America's billions worth arms industry ( supported by the US GOVERNEMENT) has got its billions from selling arms to nice kind people who love Democracy ? I wish. We would have a very stable world then. Mind you the arms manufacturers would probably have been a tad underfunded.
See below a non exhaustive list of dictators and despots supported by the US governement


Dictators Supported by the U.S. Government
Info mostly taken from "Friendly Dictators" Written in 1995 by Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydel

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:
" Our real task... is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military- economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization... we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning. U.S. State Department. 1948

Friendly Dictators
Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America.

Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control
the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world. Dictator Country
Abacha, General Sani Nigeria
Amin, Idi Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal Brunei
Botha, P.W. South Africa
Branco, General Humberto Brazil
Cedras, Raoul Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel Liberia
Duvalier, Francois Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco Spain
Hitler, Adolf Germany
Hassan II Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko Zaire

Montt, General Efrain Rios
Guatemala
Noriega, General Manuel Panama
Ozal, Turgut Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza Iran
Papadopoulos, George Greece
Park Chung Hee South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto Chile
Pol Pot Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios Guatemala
Salassie, Halie Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. Nicaragua
Smith, Ian Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo Paraguay
Suharto, General Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed Pakistan





And also below an excerpt from Bernard Redmond , ex Dean of communications at Boston University :

Bernard Redmont was dean of the College of Communication from 1982 to 1986. From 1950 to 1976 and from 1979 to 1981 he was stationed in Paris as a foreign correspondent. — Ed.

A few observations on William R. Keylor's article on the state of Franco-American relations:

* Presumably the treaty of 1778 was what he meant by "the longest bilateral 'alliance' in history." If so, that treaty was unilaterally abrogated by the United States in 1798 and by both countries in 1800.
* While the two countries have never declared war on each other, the United States did embark on an undeclared war against French shipping in 1798, with Congressional authorization, and the French fought the American invasion of French North Africa in 1942.
* While Charles de Gaulle is described as a "cantankerous critic of American hegemony," there is no mention of Vichy-leaning Franklin Roosevelt's shabby treatment of both de Gaulle and his Free French movement in World War ii to possibly explain the French leader's rancor.
* A desire to "prop up protégés and overturn adversaries in former French colonies" does not explain France's thwarting Libyan designs on Chad while staying out of Chad's civil war, nor more recent French efforts in the Congo or Liberia, neither of which were French colonies.

Let me close by assuring you that I enjoy Bostonia even more than I enjoy carping.




Arsène C. Davignon (COM'58, GRS'59)
Quincy, Massachusetts

I would like to address the two "intriguing questions" that conclude William Keylor's article. He asks first " . . . why Chirac opposed a policy that he must have known the Bush administration was intent on pursuing and fully capable of executing." If he considers this question intriguing, it means that his readers must assume that nobody in the world should oppose any policy, whatever its merits, decided by a U.S. administration, as long as America has the means to implement it. I am afraid that to assume this as normal looks very intriguing to many people in the world. Yes, the United States has the means to do a lot in today's world. But when the selected course seems dangerous to many foreign governments and people, these governments and people have the right and duty to voice their opposition to it.

As Keylor mentioned, public opinion in France (as in Germany and many other European countries) opposed this policy. Perhaps they judged the policy flawed — for instance, by thinking that the positive side of kicking out Saddam was more than counterbalanced by its logical consequence of infuriating the Muslim world and giving birth to many, many little Osamas. Or perhaps they simply did not like the idea that one country can start a war just because its current administration is intent on pursuing it and fully capable of executing it, whether this country is North Korea or the United States. A few governments, such as Britain and Spain, decided to go against public opinion in their countries, but this is not a logical position for a government to hold or one that can be held for a long time (consider the trouble Tony Blair is now in). It is only logical that Chirac and Schroeder supported public opinion in their countries and opposed the Bush policy. I do not think one has to look very far back in Chirac's past or try to find other special reasons to justify his opposition. And one could ask why Chirac is singled out in this first question.

Regarding the second question: one of the main reasons French-bashing is the only remaining politically correct form of ethnic discrimination in the United States is summed up in his last paragraph. It assumes that dissent in the U.S.-dominated world is tolerated as long as it is quasi-silent. Again, to see the American public applying to its leaders a standard different from what is expected from everybody else can only frighten the rest of the world.

As a Newsweek editorial put it last spring, a country cannot have a policy that frightens its allies and infuriates its enemies.




Philippe René-Bazin
Paris, France

I could not help but wonder why William Keylor, in his explanation of the recent difficulties in the relationship between the United States and France, gave no mention to a number of factors that greatly influenced France's (Chirac's) attempt to derail the U.S. administration's military action in Iraq:

1. French investments and contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime in oil field development — around $50 billion worth via TotalFinaElf, a very large French corporation. Also, the French nuclear technology investment in Iraq.
2. The personal and cordial relationship of Chirac with Saddam Hussein that had developed over the years.




Reverend Martin Fors (STH'91)
Lyndon Center, Vermont

William Keylor Responds

Arsène C. Davignon is correct to note that the formal Franco-American military alliance that enabled the American colonies to win their independence broke up at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Thereafter, the United States, in keeping with President Washington's admonition in his farewell address, avoided all alliances with foreign countries until World War ii. (Woodrow Wilson explicitly refused to qualify the U.S. joint military effort with Great Britain and France during World War I as an "alliance.") I put the term "alliance" in quotation marks to evoke the long history of relatively peaceful relations between the United States and France. This benign relationship has been temporarily interrupted over the years by periodic confrontations — such as the two military skirmishes Davignon mentions and the 2003 diplomatic brouhaha over Iraq. But compared to the long history of hot wars and cold wars between the United States and the other major powers that participated in the Iraq controversy (Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Italy, and Spain), the history of Franco-American cordiality is worth mentioning. I agree with Davignon that the policy of the Roosevelt administration toward de Gaulle's Free French government-in-exile was inexcusable, as was FDR's decision to extend formal recognition to the collaborationist Vichy regime after the fall of France in 1940.

Philippe René-Bazin misunderstands the meaning of my term intriguing with reference to Chirac's opposition to the Bush administration's war plan. I did not mean to imply that the French president should not have opposed the U.S. decision to short-circuit the United Nations inspection process in Iraq and to circumvent the Security Council in favor of unilateral military action. I meant that Chirac's willingness to take the lead in this campaign, knowing that it would probably be futile and might expose his government to retaliatory measures from Washington, came as a surprise to me (and other observers of the French political scene): throughout his career Chirac had developed a reputation as a hard-headed, pragmatic politician who seldom went out on a limb on behalf of abstract principles. Last winter and spring he suddenly became the courageous defender of the rule of law in the world. As I indicated in my article, the leaders of Germany, Russia, and China opposed the U.S. policy just as strongly. But they remained in the shadows and let Chirac take the heat as he assembled an international coalition that thwarted Washington's goal of obtaining Security Council approbation for the policy it had already decided upon.

With regard to the phenomenon of "French-bashing" in the United States that René-Bazin rightly deplores, let us hope that that despicable sentiment has finally come to an end. We Americans have no right to be overly sensitive about criticism from abroad when we do not hesitate to caricature entire societies based on ignorance of their history.

Finally, I am no more persuaded by Martin Fors's interpretation of France's primary motivation for opposing U.S. policy in Iraq than I am by the argument that the prospect of profits for Halliburton, Bechtel, and various American oil companies explains the Bush administration's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. As for Chirac's relationship with Saddam: throughout the 1980s until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, both the United States and France maintained cordial relations with the government of Iraq. American and French companies supplied various strategic materials to, and both governments shared intelligence with, the Iraqi dictator for use in his war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. Chirac lavished praise on Saddam, while Donald Rumsfeld, as a personal emissary of President Reagan, visited Baghdad in the mid-1980s to assure the Iraqi leader of U.S. support. The United States does not have clean hands when it comes to past support for Saddam Hussein and is in no position to lecture the French on this matter.

[Calibelle]

I am american, living in england for the time being. My boss also happens to be French. Top notch guy. I don't have anything against anyone, because of their nationality. I treat each person as an individual.

The only thing I have ever heard both Brits and Americans say about the French are: " The French... they're always there when they need us."

But I really think when these kinds of things are said in America, it is out of ignorance. If Brits don't care for the French... I would say they are harboring some kind of grudge for the war that went on between England and France. I think any such grudge is stupid though.

But as far as you thinking that Americans HATE the French... I don't think its true. If there are any hard feelings, I don't think that it has to do with people as individuals, more with political disagreements.

[Mooseketeer]

I think you are probably right Calibelle ( where do you live in the UK by the way?) , it's not Hate and I was using far too emotive a word, though I still think a definite antipathy ( mostly out of ignorance and understanding of the culture)towards the French from a lot of American people . The Brits have a love/hate relationship with France, but perhaps because they are closer geographically and culturally also I tend to find it is mostly a benign exasperation with their Gallic neighbours. Nations will always misunderstand each other, I think that's just the way we are wired up but it is hurtful and annoying every time I hear about the French being dirty, lazy or cowardly when I strongly believe this is not true. I am always very happy to denigrate negative aspects of France ( and there are plenty don't get me wrong) but it feels terribly unfair to have an entire Nation derided by stereotypes which are not true and usually spouted out by people who have never lived there or speak the language. Political differences should not make for bad "domestic" relationships as I still genuinely believe we are pretty much all the same underneath and nobody is better or worse.Just different.

[Delaneyland]

It's pretty obvious this has become another anti American political rant...I give up.

[Mooseketeer]

I am not sure how I have in any way been anti American? I apologise if it has come across that way but I honestly did not do so intentionally. I love and know the US pretty well having lived there, visited regularly and having many, many American friends. I was trying to establish why there was such an antipathy towards French people that's all. Also I had assumed this was an open forum for mature discussion and as such had the right to come back with my own views and points . I cannot see how responding to CarolinaJack for example with facts about involvement with dictators is anti American ??? All I was trying to say is that whilst France is very far from perfect and has a lot to answer to ( Especially its government) so is the US . Am I not allowed to respond to points made on this discussion? I thought this was a form of democratic exchange. Have I missed something ????

[carolinajack]

and I dont think we hate the french so much, i think it is cultural differences and both the Americans and the French peoples ignorance of one another.

all the Americans I know, love the French but hate French politics and policies and all teh French I know love America but hate American policies

[spunky1]

I love French fries!

[carolinajack]

i love Belgian Frites

[Mooseketeer]

I love frites too , with some mayonnaise.... Yumm
Why was it ever called French when the Belgians came up with it ? let's give back to caesar etc....

[MoxD]

French stole the "fries" to the Belgium as I heard, Americans during WW time were in Belgium (French side) and well they heard French so they thought it was the French