About That “French Surrender” Thing ..
Editorials, Educating Jay, Pop Culture - Tweet this! June 14th, 2009
Pretty much everybody online fancies themselves a comedian; unfortunately most of us are and will remain wannabes. Now that “Eternal September” has hit twitter, legions of newbies clamoring for attention are using the micro-blogging platform to repeat, rehash and retweet their skewed and simplistic view of history and the world.
On average, about a dozen or so anti-French jabs are written on twitter per week, most of them being some form of “French Surrender” joke. While some are deliberately trying to be offensive, others are living proof there is a “long tail” to America’s recent spate of French Bashing.
A few examples from within the last day or so:
- @timchi – “You can try and run over a french bulldog but it would surrender first”
- @asianlunatic – “Mantastic: When ur in France for holiday, the French will surrender to u, just to be on the safe side.”
- @JohnHancock61 – “Great movie line from Flushed Away: Lead French frog: To action! French frog commandos: We Surrender!”
- @Simon4365 – “ahhhh the weekend or as the French say “we surrender”!!!”
- @Hondo11 – “I’ll say it. Pietrus is not only French (known to surrender) he looks strikingly erily to a Primate. FACT”
- @macslash – “It’s nice to hear Serlet attack Windows with a French accent. Would have expected him to just surrender.”
While most comedic outfits have abandoned French Bashing, especially Jay Leno and his forty or so jokes about supposed French cowardice and propensity to surrender, legions of twitterers, bloggers and comment contributors have kept the myth of French cowardice alive.
Having turned a traumatic historical event of epic proportions into a timeless character trait, French Haters have woven prejudice against France and the French into pop-culture.
Thankfully, one of North-America’s most astute international columnists has decided to take the myth of French cowardice and surrender head on. I present to you, Eric Margolis and his column : “Getting to the truth about World War II”. Thank You Eric. Merci.
Here are a few excerpts:
“France’s army did not simply surrender or run away in 1940, as ignorant American Know-Nothing conservatives claim. “
“Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly and thoroughly as the French, and saved itself only by abandoning its French allies and fleeing across the Channel. “
“France lost 217,000 dead and 400,000 wounded. Compare that to America’s loss of 416,000 dead during four years of war in the Pacific and Europe.”
Eric Margolis is an award-winning columnist who contributes regularly to the Quebecor Media Company and the Huffington Post. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London to name a few. Eric Margolis has also appeared on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC.
See also: French Bashers hit twitter @ Miquelon.org
Comments on this website are the responsibility of their authors and are subject to the Blog Comment Rules.
117 Responses to “About That “French Surrender” Thing ..”
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 » Show All
Add Miquelon.org to my del.icio.us
May 4th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Fred, yet again, your ignorance is breathtaking. The whole point I was making is that the whole “Celtic” thing is mostly an artifical construct created by Irish nationalists. Parts of England are just as Celtic as parts of Scotland, for example.
The Ulster Scots as you call them, are not blood cousins of the Dublin Irish, but are in fact of Scottish descent.
Your comments about the English are basically racist, but this is probably to be expected on this site. You really are a twisted and bitter little man, you are probaly the sort of half-wit who used to give money the IRA.
The French are not at all popular in parts of Europe or North Africa, but I prefer to judge people on how they are rather than what nationality they are.
May 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I live in France, I like French people, and I like how my French friends will happily tease me about being a perfidious rosbif, while I tease them for being arrogant froggies. There’s nothing malicious or spiteful, we’re just playing with long held-stereotypes. And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.
Personally I’d suggest the whole surrender name-calling is far older than WWII, far older than WWI, I’d suggest it goes all the way back to the Anglo-French animosity following the 100 Years’ War. It’s only the 20th Century that has seen Anglo-French alliances, prior to that we were avowed enemies.
May 6th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Not exactly. It started in the 19th century: Both our nations helped Greece gain its independance from Turkey. Then we helped the Turks against Russia during the Crimean War. And I won’t mention the poor Prince Impérial.
Of course, during that time, there were also some disagrements: remember Fachoda?
May 8th, 2010 at 9:19 am
“”And we both have a good laugh at the arrogant septics claiming to be the first to call them Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys.”"
Actually it sort of looks like you you’re laughing with them, not at them.
Fact of the matter is, about 2 million French soldiers died fighting for France last century. When you tell your “jokes” about how the French are afraid to fight, you spit on the memory of those soldiers. Period.
And TheBigM, what the hell are you still doing here ? We’re obviously not getting through to you.
May 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
“”Your comments about the English are basically racist,”"
But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right ?
“”but this is probably to be expected on this site”"
Unfreakingbelievable. Newsflash. It’s the French who are the victim of xenophobic attacks by your compatriots. Constantly. Miquelon.org reports anti-French activity. This site is extremely well documented.
So now we’re racists because we don’t accept being painted as cowards by your ilk?
Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings ?
You gotta love those double standards. People like trollie or the bigM are only here to justify French-bashing. Disgusting.
May 8th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The history of England as a nation might be said to have begun with the Norman Conquest in 1066, followed by 200 yrs of occupation (the earlier time period under Alfred would not qualify; inasmuch, the land area under control being one-half in size). This example of a nation’s beginning might seem ruinous; however, we know that nation was to profit mightly from the Norman-French “injection”
–going from what could be called a ’sleepy backwater (near backwater) existence’ to that of “dynamic duo”, to be punctuated by actions far and wide of event lasting to this day. This hybrid, exhibiting “hybrid vigor” (not always successful) in action, has caused the more zealous historian to accurately label it “Anglo-Norman”, rather than Anglo-Saxon; indeed, Englishman, you have much to be thankful for –going from ’sleepy village’ type to that of far more active, enterprising type. During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ’ventures-to-type’; however, we know that you were ultimately repulsed (unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union) by that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
Today we see that the British in their (Norman) ”enterprising” have discovered oil off the shoreline of ‘their’ Falklands. It remains to be seen how this will play out against the rival Argentine claim of ownership over the Malvinas Islas. In any event it seems the U.S. will not be backing the British ‘this time’ as opposed to the covert assistance rendered during the previous clash (the U.S. Secretary of Defense being awarded a British Govt. Citation for actions undertaken in that episode).
The forgoing, “big M”, is your lesson for the day. Chew on it and reflect; also, do far more reading so that you might advance in knowledge along this line.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Fred – Oh dear, another breathtaking display of ignorance and bias from the resident anglophobe Fred.
Where to start with such nonsense?
1 – “The history of England can be said to have began in 1066″ No, not really, that’s a very skewed way of looking at it, there were kings of England before 1066 (in the eight century acually), and it was a thriving country under King Alfred in the tenth century, although by 1066 England was not as unified as it had been in earlier centuries and this is reason why the Normans were able to conquer it. The Normans, did have an impact, no doubt, but they were no more cultrally advanced than the anglo-saxons, just militarily so. For many left-wingers, the Norman invasion was regrettable as England lost contact with its Scandinavian roots and became more of centralised, class-ridden country. Many of today’s English aristocratic families are descended from the Normans.
2 “ During the Hundred Years War your nation was to cause a lot of trouble for France in ’ventures-to-type’;”
To see the hundred years war as battle between England and France is just utter nonsense. The hundred years war was a battle between two royal dynasties for control of the French and English crowns.
The conflict has its roots in the Norman conquest and was fought between the houses of Valois and Plantagent both of which had their roots in France.
So, let me spell that out for you Fred, both royal dynasties had their roots in FRANCE, but the Plantagent house (or house of ANJOU) ruled England at the time. If you acutally bothered to read about it (if you are able to read that is) you would also find out that the following regions faught on the house of Anjou’s side: Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine and Navarre.
Am I missing something or are these areas in modern day France?
3 “unlike the fate of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, in forced union”
My god, this is just the most ignorant statement of the lot. No, the Scottish were not “forced” into a union as you put it, the ACTS OF UNION were signed in 1707 between the two countries which brought the two parliaments together. Have you never heard of this??
that ‘unbeatable foe’ across the channel, the Salian Frank, Gallo-Roman, Norman and Breton amalgam.
‘unbeatable foe ??? – The French have been far from unbeatable: Napolean was seen off by the Russians and an Anglo-Pussian Alliance. To this day, cold winters in Russia are called “un hiver pour les francais”
The Franco-Prussion war? The second world war? Hardly unbeatable.
Lastly, there is one huge flaw in your “argument” or more accurately rant that you put forward.
You claim that it is only because of the Normans (or French as some people on this site see it) that Britain was able to become a global power, but then berate the British for supposedly dominating other countries. So surely this tendancy is down to the Normans, not the English. You can’t have it both ways.
Fred, I would try reading some history books if I was you instead of unthinkingly regurgitating anti-English propoganda that you may have learned at school. Even on this riduculous site, you comments stand out from the crowd in terms of their crassness, ignorance and downright stupidity, although they do make me laugh.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Barney- “But a plethora of surrender jokes is A OK, right? When I have made surrender jokes on here?
Sorry, when has “my country” (what does that mean?) made xenophobic attacks on France, as far as I am aware, much of the recent bile has come from the USA. The term “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” did not originate in the UK.
“Or are we racists because we don’t think the Brits or Americans are superior beings” - Of course not, but Fred is suggesting that the English
are inferior and that is racist.
I am not justifying French-bashing at all, I am interested in the historical relationship between France and English-speaking countries having spent time living in France. I personally think that the whole anti-French thing in the USA because of the Iraq war was ridiculous, but I am also interested in French people’s attitudes to English speaking peoples and as demonstrated by this site, you don’t have to scratch too far to find some fairly unpleasant views.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
To the BigM:
Gosh, just imagine. France was fighting France during the Hundred Years War !
Are you out of your cotton-picking mind ?
Again, during the above war the French proved to be “the unbeatable foe” (the English did hold onto Calais until being kicked out by the Revolutionary Armies at a later time). If you wish to discuss other events and times we can begin with
the British stand at Singapore during WW II. Yamashita, go get ‘em !
Napoleon’s failure in Russia: We do know that he was warned against invading
Russia by his senior commanders; but, being Napoleon, he did not listen to their
voice of reason (not the first genius to have erred in a terrible way). Typhus destroyed Napoleon’s Army —alas, coupled to the most severe winter seen in a century. One major battle was that of Borodino, terrible for both sides in losses;
however, the French held the field and were the victors.
You trumpet the Scandanavian element as affecting for the better their influence
upon “Anglo” early development. What is it that you find favorable; inasmuch,
these people gave the “Anglo” a terrible beating anytime there was a clash ? On one occasion, your resistance to the Dane was to launch a most treacherous reaction to their presence, slaughtering woman and children alike !
Regarding the Saxon —home-grown variety: History relates this tribe would not meet the Franks under Charlemagne in open battle; instead, choosing the “hit and run” tactic w/ retreat to the forest edge. Finally, the issue was settled, Charlemagne exacting a most telling measure in response; i.e., taking the youngest adult son from a family unit(s) and having him beheaded ! Five thousand Saxons being demanded and turned over to Charlemagne, thus lost their heads. There is a statue of Charlemagne mounted on a horse, in front of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Both French and German claim him. Question:
How does an Englishman view the Saxon admission to his bloodstream ?
Regarding the so-called Acts of Union:
As any Scotsman or Welshman will tell you there was no question of choice in the matter. They were effectively crushed and the ‘upper snuffs’ made the decision for them. England proper, being the size of a postage stamp, needed to grow to survive; moreover, these conquered people (Celts) made excellent cannon-fodder to have on hand for the future. Beware the Welsh bowman !
Regarding Hastings, 1066:
“May the best man win” and he did ! The trickery of Harold was typically Saxon,
learned in Albion’s hothouse of feud and counter-feud, a la Hatfield & McCoy. As I remarked earlier, the victory was to have lasting consequence for the better in so many ways.
One last question:
Scatalogical, four-letter words are Saxon in origin. Have you people advanced out of the trough to the point where you can cast these aside as being archaic ?
Let us hope so.
June 22nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Excerpt:
http://stadiumdrives.com/2010-articles/june/hot-or-not-the-beginnings-6-22-10.html
Not only are your soccer side falling apart in South Africa, basically surrendering to itself (surprise), but you had such an opportunity to steer the spotlight away from your idiocy on Sunday night. Instead, French qualifier Gregory Havret, summed up what people the world over believe about you. You are a smug and entitled people with little respect for anyone else. And your food sucks. Havret, fresh off a lovely run at the US Open to finish second, spent his entire post match interview whining about missed putts and talking about how good he really was, not once congratulating first-time Major-winner Graeme McDowell.