Are the Guignols anti American?

 

Les Guignols, the daily satirical program on the French TV channel Canal+ is often mentioned as evidence of anti-Americanism of the French media by many Americans and sometimes by the French themselves. 

Particularly recognizable is Mr. Sylvestre, a character who is supposed to embody the greedy, warmonger, cynical, coarse, rude and uneducated American. It is of course not by accident that Mr. Sylvestre bears all the features of American actor Sylvester Stallone*. As well, it comes as no surprise that Mr. Sylvestre favors the war in Iraq, describes the French as “les fromages qui puent” (the stinking cheeses) and is the CEO of the “World Company”, the very symbol of the world economy which he runs with the help of a few dozens of his clones. 

He so much represents the immorality and brutal force of the ruling class that the character is also used to portray the cardinals who surround the Pope and are, in the eyes of the program, responsible for all the lies that are told the world over to cover his misdeeds. 

And yet, for all the animosity he is supposed to arouse, Mr. Sylvestre is unexpectedly very popular with the program’s followers who seem to know perfectly how to decipher the parody. They also know they’re watching the one French channel that is the most pro-American French TV station. 

And while Les Guignols might be a tad hard to swallow for American watchers, one can’t help notice there’s no hint of any hatred towards America, or towards Americans for that matter. 

No hatred, but certainly a bit of contempt. But is that enough to consider Les Guignols as evidence of French anti Americanism?

And for what it’s worth, how about an American version of the Guignols? Wouldn’t that be badly needed in these times of extreme division in America?

*It is interesting to note that Sylvester Stallone was awarded an official decoration by the then Minister of culture Jack Lang back in 1992. At that time, Mr. Stallone said that he chose his “Rambo” nickname as a tribute to the French poet Arthur Rimbaud. Hummmmm…..?

Note : If that can be any proof that the show is an equal opportunity offender,  Jacques Chirac was  surnamed Super Menteur (Super Liar), a superhero with no shame about making the most outrageous lies and the most untenable promises.

Ménage à trois

It’s all about history isn’t it?

Seven years ago, when France opposed the USA during the Iraq war crisis, most French people were dumbfounded to discover how widespread and fierce anti-French feelings were in America. To a large extend, the French were indulging in the feel good illusion that by and large and contrary to the British, Americans were rather sympathetic to them… how naïve and misinformed!

They couldn’t figure out how former enemies had become closest friends and closest friends had turned into near bitterest foes. The crisis the Iraq war started between France and America only highlighted a long simmering history of bad feelings between the two countries.

All along the 17th/18th centuries, when the American colonies’ population was growing mostly from English immigrants, France was THE world power of the time with one competitor only: England. If one takes into account the rivalry between the two countries dating back the Middle-Ages, the two were already at odds for more than five centuries, from Hastings (1066) to Joan of Arc (1412-1431) through the Hundred Year War! The English immigrants when they were heading toward America were carrying these memories with them. Is it too much to assume francophobia was in place the day the Mayflower landed on American shores (1620)?

Of course this rivalry between France and England was kept alive in America since it was an English territory. One thing that is never called to attention is that the Founding Fathers of America were born English subjects of the King of England, Georges III, and that was the case until the 9th American president, William Harrison (1773/1841). When the colonials decided to break free from England, the help they received from the French was all but natural. They had to resort to the historical competitor of their motherland and they owed their freedom to their arch enemy! How could that be without having a price in terms of self image and resentment? Americans owe their independence and freedom to France and the French. For people originating from England!

Their historical identity is shaped out of two dependences. The first vis-à-vis their former rulers, the second vis-à-vis their only allies at that time. Every true American patriot shudders at the thought he could be required to sing along the “God Save the Queen” in honor of Elisabeth II, and bow in front of the British flag. He doesn’t have to, and he knows whom he owes it to… 

Now, America being the child of England, no wonder Americans see the English as their natural friends through thick and thin and the French as cumbersome historical allies carrying with them embarrassing souvenirs… And since it is not possible to forget the debt of gratitude, the only practical thing to do is to keep on sullying the memories that seem to be so impossible to live peacefully with. Hence the permanent sort of seemingly love/hate relationship between France and America, swinging from ignorance to outbursts of anger and conversely with some moments of truce in between. The French-bashing at work in America is only an extension both historically and geographically of the francophobia in England. The hundred year war lives on in America!

While that may be a way of characterizing the relationship between France and America, this national feeling translates of course in the mind of individuals but certainly not all of them. For one, Americans of Spanish origin probably couldn’t care less about the type of relationship there exists between Washington and Paris, and the same holds true for Americans of Asian descent and African-Americans. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that mostly white Americans are concerned with the issue, if and when they do. Of course the English have never forgotten nor forgiven the French for the loss of their colonies and, generally speaking, think the French richly deserve the treatment they get from the Americans. 

As for the French, by and large they don’t feel concerned in the least with the history of America’s independence. Let bygones be bygones. Add to this General de Gaulle asking Washington to withdraw the American troops stationed in France in 1966… and it is a tough job for many Americans to maintain a positive image of Lafayette…

It’s all about history, isn’t it?

Lafayette, another study case for transatlantic misunderstanding

 

There are thousands of places in America that are named after French General Lafayette. If it’s a safe bet to think many Americans know who he is and how he contributed to the independence of their country, maybe the same Americans would be surprised to learn the same man they consider a hero and a legend possibly on par with General Washington himself is next to totally irrelevant on the French side of the pond. The French aristocrat who was bestowed an honorary American citizenship is no more than a distant, unrecognizable figure among the French.

Actually, to most Parisians, the name Lafayette evokes the department store on Boulevard Haussmann, and to the majority of the French it evokes hardly anything. Should a poll be conducted about what he contributed to American history, my guess is that about 80% of the French simply wouldn’t know. The gardens of Château de Chavagnac, his birthplace, feature a rock on which a plaque has been mounted, without even a reference to his role in the American Revolution.  

Those interested in history know he played a very minor role during the French Revolution (on the royalist side) and then again during the 1830 revolution. As for the location of his grave, likely more than 99% of the French and Parisians alike simply don’t know (and don’t care…). Well, as we were reminded some time ago, the Marquis de La Fayette actually is buried in the Cimetière de Picpus in the 12th district of Paris where he died May 20, 1834. As was his wish, he now rests by his wife.

An interesting question is to ask why isn’t Marquis de Lafayette buried in the Père Lachaise or some other famous French cemetery? In fact it all has to do with the horrors of the Revolution, particularly the episode known as the Terror which, this time, most French know about. The mother and one sister of Lafayette’s wife were then beheaded on the nearby Place de la Nation and their bodies dumped in an adjacent field, which later was turned into the Picpus cemetery.

At the bottom of the garden, behind a chapel that was erected at the beginning of the 19th century you will find the grave of the General, resting among other victims of the Terror.

There, regularly, American delegations hold some formal ceremony in memory of the French soldier who came to the rescue of the insurgents of 1776. The American flag is always on display and plaques adorn the surrounding walls.

As you may expect, it is a very, very quiet place, much less intimidating than the Père Lachaise or Montparnasse cemeteries, with only some dozens graves in such an extremely peaceful setting you wouldn’t guess you’re in the French capital.

Isn’t it somehow ironic and tale-telling that what bonds France and America so closely is also given such an enormously different treatment on each side of the Atlantic? Isn’t that difference of perspective a good illustration of the state of our relations for over 2 centuries? 

And why not hope it will go on just the same for as many years to come?

Note 1: This discrepancy between the respective American and the French importance granted to the memory of Lafayette kind of reminds me of the French-Indian wars in America that are almost unheard of in France whereas they occupy a not so insignificant part in the early history of the U.S.

Note 2: The picture is that of Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge (1907) by John Ward Dunsmore, a century old painting, familiar in America, but little known in France.

Elitist Frenchies

If there is an institution that perhaps best symbolizes what Americans would tend to describe as French elitism, it may well be the Académie Française. Sitting in a majestic building on the left bank of the river Seine, it faces the Louvre on the right bank, where kings and emperors have ruled the kingdom of France for centuries.

Founded by Richelieu in 1635, l’Académie Française is actually one among the 5 academies of the Institut de France but is by far the most renowned of all. 40 members, known as “Immortals”, are elected by their peers and there have been only 713 members in 370 years. A rather exclusive club indeed… Highlight of each new entrance is a speech the newcomer delivers in honor of his predecessor, with full regalia, a sword and a beautiful costume. The speech is an important part of the intellectual life in Paris, with the French President sometimes attending the ceremony. There’s no denying, there’s some elitism here…

The main occupation of the Immortals is the redaction of a dictionary of the French language. There have been 8 editions so far, the 9th being a work in progress since… 1938. But contrary to the popular belief, the Académie neither forbids the use of any word nor excludes words coming from other languages when they are used in the French language (mainly English, especially since the end of WWII). It simply acknowledges the current usage and makes recommendations as to which word could be used, and how, in place of a foreign one. It may possibly coin new words when needed. 

In 1980 something a bit out of the ordinary happened to the Académie: the first woman, Marguerite Yourcenar of Belgium was elected to its ranks! It is said that then French President, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing “amicably” suggested to some insider friends of his that they should give their vote to Madame Yourcenar… 4 other women have also been elected since: Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Jacqueline de Romilly, Florence Delay and just last year, Assia Djebar from Algeria. 

Another surprise in store for Americans is to learn that, after 335 years, the first foreigner to be elected “immortal” was… an American, Julien Green in 1970. So much again for the anti-Americanism of the French… After him, an Argentinean, a Romanian, a Senegalese and last year a Chinese have also been welcome in the company.

Americans don’t always know it but the links between America and the Académie, which seems to be so quintessentially French, are deep and numerous. Julien Green was mentioned, Marguerite Yourcenar had been living with an American in Maine (where she eventually died) for decades before she returned to Paris when her name was proposed to the election, Assia Djebar, the last woman to be elected had been a teacher at New York University for years. René Girard, Michel Serres and Claude Levi-Strauss also taught in American universities. Other names quite familiar in the US are Jacques Yves Cousteau or the famous Count Alexis de Tocqueville.

The Académie is often mocked, ridiculed or accused of staunch conservatism and yet, most French are secretly proud the country can boast such an old and tradition-rich assembly which so much symbolizes the arts and literature of France, notwithstanding the fact that the French owe much to the Académie with regards to the respect in which they hold their language. 

The Académie is unique in the sense that no other country has such a body whose responsibility it is to take care of the national language. Every now and then the British for example like to make fun of the Academy Française and its purportedly pretension to rule the language, which it doesn’t in the sense it is accused of. And yet, in a country that has countless Royal Academies for everything, it is hard not to think that the British feel a certain envy for a comparable body. 

Americans as well often seem to be disconcerted with this sort of European institution, as this article in the New York Times shows. And sometimes it also looks like there’s a need for something comparable. In fact, an editorial of the same New York Times in April 2004 deemed appalling the situation of English as spoken by the young and the role of the Académie Française was, unexpectedly, highly praised. The newspaper also made it clear it was to the honor of France to make the defence and respect of the French language a national ambition. 

So, what do you think of the idea of such an institution in the US? Laughable? Viable? And isn’t there a need for young Americans to be taught the importance of respecting their language?

Imperial Yanks vs. metric Frenchies

 

On 18 germinal 1795 (April 7th, 1795) the metric system was voted in France as the revolutionary new system of measurement that would be used throughout the country. However, it took another 50 years (1837) before it became mandatory. 

Since then, the entire world has taken up the system developed by the French, from China to Chile, from Russia to Qatar. Talk about France’s waning influence…

Well, on second thought, not the entire world.

The Imperial system, still in use in the UK and the Commonwealth, is based on Roman and old Anglo-Saxon units. Enter a Tolkien-like universe of thumbs, chains, furlongs, ounces, pounds, and other pecks and bushels. Add the Fahrenheit temperature measurement system and you have a complete recipe for confusion. Even the British, so fond of their system that is so old that it sometimes stands as a symbol of obscurantism, have decided some years ago to discard the Fahrenheit system in favor of the Celsius one. British TV weather forecasts now use Celsius degrees exclusively.

Understandably, it wasn’t historically acceptable for the US to adopt the English imperial system. So they implemented the U.S. customary units in its place.

But in essence, it is the same system, as old fashioned and medieval-like as the English one. Slight differences, no more. Americans’ weight is measured in pounds, their height in feet (why not knee or ankles?), they buy their gasoline by the gallon (old latin for bucket!) or their oil by the barrel (from the French 12th century word baril.)

And while it hasn’t prevented America to be the world power we know about, the parallel existence of this antiquated system along with the metric one turned out to be the basic cause for the failure of a MARS explorer satellite 6 years ago. Let’s note that officially, the U.S. has been “metric” since 1866. In practice however, metric units are simply not used.

Now the question is not to compare both systems or decide which one is “better” (the world seems to have made up its mind a long time ago…) but to ponder how a country that is so often 10 years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to technological feats and scientific prowess can continue to use such an archaic system of measurement.

And I for one sometimes wonder whether the widespread acceptance of a medieval system may have anything to do with the fact that 45% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago…

Note : The painting is “Woman holding a balance” by Vermeer:

American connoisseur

 

One of the most undisputed clichés about the French is their passion for food in general and bread in particular. Bread, cheese, wine, what could be more French?

So you would expect a Frenchman to be the top expert on these matters, especially when it comes to bread. Hasn’t bread been the regular staple of French food for centuries? 

Wrong you are! The expert is an American, Steven L. Kaplan, a scholar who has been teaching French culture for years at Cornell University in New York and the author of numerous books on his pet subject: France in the 18th century, particularly regarding all things related to sustenance and nourishment. 

Several of Mr. Kaplan’s books are available in French. One of them, published in 1996, is dedicated to the bakers of Paris during the 18th century.

And two years ago Kaplan did what no French person ever did: he visited more than 600 bakeries in Paris (out of more than 1,200), buying up to 60 baguettes a day, and published a guide listing what he considered the best of them. The guide, titled “Cherchez Le Pain” (Looking For Bread) gives a thorough account of his research and findings and rates bakers and their products on a 20-point scale made up of 6 parameters for the product itself as well as 7 other parameters for the shop itself. Needless to say it is a very documented and technical book. And likely, most French people wouldn’t know 1% of what Mr. Kaplan knows about flour, yeast and how to make bread. 

Reading his book not only teaches so many things about the ingredients and techniques to turn them into a most delicious staple, it also provides unexpected insights of the post WW2 history of bread in France which, (and who remembers that?) was on the verge of becoming an industrialized tasteless product, laden with additives and bleaching components designed to make it look healthy when compared with the brown bread the French had to get by with during the war. 

Mr. Kaplan, who arrived in Paris for the first time in 1962, says he noticed a shift in the customs of consumers at the end of the 70s-80s when the professionals became conscious that French bread no longer was what it used to be. It was high time to react and return to the good old time when bakers actually knew their trade. Since then, a competition has taken place on this market with the creation of different brands of breads made the way they were in the past. 

In reconnaissance of his work and his deep knowledge of French history and the service rendered to French culture, Mr. Kaplan has been made a “Chevalier in the Order of Arts and Letters” by the then Minister for Cultural Affairs.

Isn’t Mr. Kaplan another example of what make the bonds between France and America something none of the partners would want to be deprived of?

Note 1: The two best bakers in Paris, according to Mr. Kaplan, are located rue Monge in the 5th district. He each gives them a grade of 18.35 out of 20 (Mr. Kaplan is very precise in his scoring…)

Note 2: The painting is “The Harvesters” (1565) by Pieter Bruegel, Metropolitan Museum of Arts in NY.

An American in Paris

Europe! This is where it all comes from. Millions of Americans can trace their ancestry to one or another European country. No wonder a trip on the other side of the pond is a dream that lingers for years in the minds of many an American whichever state he or she comes from. And because of the origin of the majority of immigrants it’s easy to figure out that for Americans London is Europe of course but without being that foreign. 

I mean, Americans can understand the locals and dialogue with them. London could be some sort of a quaint old American city where people speak with an, oh so strange, antiquated, lovely and classy accent… The government is friendly, so are the inhabitants supposed to be, you must admit it’s reassuring. All together, Americans can enjoy the sheer pleasure of the unusual laced with the security feeling stemming from the “déjà vu”.

And yet Britain isn’t all of Europe of course, there’s the rest of it, the Continentals, among which is France. And there may lay the snag. There’s something special with France and its capital, everyone knows that but… Isn’t it also a well known fact that the French are anti-American, “rude”, “arrogant”? To the point that many, many Americans expect to be ill-treated when in France, especially in Paris, only to often be positively surprised when they eventually make it in the French capital. 

And yet, despite its sometimes bad reputation, Paris is the world number one city for the number of tourists it welcomes every year with over 25 millions in 2004, 1.4 millions of them from America! Paris is also the world number one city when it comes to international congresses, ahead of London despite the language asset that the British capital should benefit from. 

To many American journalists, diplomats or executive directors, a post in Paris often means the top notch of foreign assignments. Sure, if London provides Americans a sense of easiness that is definitively missing in Paris, the French capital also is often seen as the incarnation of charm and beauty, romanticism and intellectualism all together. There must be some truth behind that cliché. Indeed, for centuries all monarchs, emperors and Presidents of France have tried to outdo each other in order to add more monuments and grandeur to the City of Light. And in the meantime, Paris has succeeded in retaining its humanity and a sense of earthly pleasure with it.

That is maybe where the difference lays with London where no central power seems to have a long-term ambition for the British capital but to turn it into an ever more modern city mainly dedicated to trade and business. Whereas, on the other side of the British Channel, in June 2006 another landmark in the Parisian sky has opened its doors, le Musée des Arts Premiers, located along the river Seine, near the Eiffel Tower. It ranks among the grandest Parisian museums along with the Louvre, Orsay, Beaubourg to name a few. Isn’t it what many Americans are looking for when travelling to Europe? Something that is “essentially” European and not a reminder of what they have in plentiful back home?

The love story between Americans and Paris is a long documented story anyway and well prior to George Gershwin and Gene Kelly! Remember The Moveable Feast? And Mary Cassatt, Janet Flanner, Edith Wharton, Art Buchwald etc…

So, how comes it sometimes seems so difficult to fine tune Americans and French? The best explanation to date of the difficulties they encounter with each other may have been provided by a French author, Pascal Baudry, who states that whereas Americans need and want to be loved, the French aren’t so much interested in being loved but in being admired… In that regard, maybe is Paris the ultimate argument the French present the Americans…

Note 1: Prince Charles once said, the British architects have wrecked more havoc on the British capital than the pilots of the Luftwaffe!

Note 2: more than 65% of visitors say they’ve been induced into travelling to Paris after seeing many, many films where the city was so beautifully pictured. Thank you Amélie and welcome to the Da Vinci Code!

Suspiscious Frenchies

Remember the joke by David Letterman? “France wants more evidence. The last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through France with a German flag.”

Or that line in the New York Times in February of 2003 about the WMD evidence that was so convincing that “only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise?”

Not only the French are a bunch of cowards who surrender as soon as they can but to top it all, they’re imbeciles, stupid, and fools.

Now, don’t we all know that the French are never satisfied, they love to talk, criticize, discuss and argue to the point they always fail to act when necessary (in which case they surrender…). 

And what’s maddening is that they are trained to do so. It’s even part of their scholar curriculum.

You see, around the age of about 17, nearly all French students have to take mandatory philosophy classes, which could be described as the art of asking questions that never have firm and definitive answers. In fact, the French so much enjoy the pleasure of discussion that there are cafés in Paris and elsewhere dedicated to philosophical debates, opened to whoever wants to take part.

And then comes June when the dreaded baccalaureat has to be carried out. This year, as has been the case for the last 200 years, over 600,000 French youngsters had to spend 4 hours writing an essay related to quotes from Plato, Spinoza, Nietzsche or Descartes. 

Interestingly enough, this year’s subjects included the works of two English philosophers, John Locke and J. Stuart Mill.. And here are some of the ones they had to ponder over the years: 

“Are we chained to our time or is it possible to break free from the values that surround us?” (Est-on prisonnier de son temps, ou peut-on s’affranchir des valeurs qui nous environnent?)

“Are just and unjust mere conventions?” (Le juste et l’injuste ne sont-ils que des conventions ?) 

“Does sensitivity to the works of art require education?” (La sensibilité aux œuvres d’art demande-t-elle à être éduquée?) 

And one the Bush administration may have been well advised to think about:

“Is efficiency the only goal of action?” (L’action ne vise-t-elle que l’efficacité?)

But what makes the value of the essays isn’t so much the answers the students provide to the questions they’re asked but the ability to articulate reasoning, the capacity not to accept things at face value. Quite the opposite indeed. In fact, the more critical they are, the more valuable the work will be. 

This training and the exams they have to go through, is very much decisive in the French way of thinking. As for the rest of their lives, they will never be immediately and plainly satisfied with whatever story they’re told. 

So when the current American administration tried to persuade the whole world that there were terrible WMDs ready to be used by against America and the whole free world, the French were the most vocal. They just weren’t ready to swallow the lies that were presented to the world, notably at the General Assembly of the UN.

Yes, the French wanted more evidence. More convincing evidence, be it at the price of passing for imbeciles in American eyes. 

And yes the French love to talk and argue and discuss and criticize. But shouldn’t Americans be a bit more inquisitive and critical at times? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have young Americans compelled to take a few philosophy classes? A la française?

Note 1: Being 2 centuries old, the French baccalaureate enjoys such a mythical status that every year, there are several people in their 60s' and even 70s' who attempt to pass, something they obviously weren’t able to do when they were younger.

Note 2: The picture is “Oedipus and the Sphinx” by Jean Dominique Ingres in Le Louvre.