# Anti French sentiment



## Ulisse

I humbly stated :

_My personal idea of the 'good-america' is 
related to idealism and selflessness, to the honest, young, open face _
_of John F. Kennedy, the civil rights movements and the idea of a big _
_land of opportunities and not opportunism. _

_Chuchuflete replied :_

_we could examine whether this is, in fact, a true premise, or if the idealism is really dead, or if it is no more dead then in France--comparing that country in 1968 and today._


Any comment about this ??? 

Hi Chuchu you are very democratic, thanks for your paternalstic comments ... thanks very much .. from now on I will only say whatever You like me to say.

Anyway I still think John F. Kennedy was a truly great american and those times were better than present one.. sorry really sorry to express my opinion.
I don't think idealism is dead in France.. sorry again.. really really sorry.


----------



## cuchuflete

If you find France to be as idealistic today as I found it in 1968, I would be grateful if you could offer facts to persuade the members of the forum, me included, to agree with you.

I find a lamentable decline in idealism in the US over the past 35 years.  I believe there has been a similar decline in most of Europe.  That is also lamentable.

If you take issue with my comments or questions, please demonstrate why your position is more sound.  I have praised the quality of the issues you raised, and thus asked for more focused discussion of them.  If this is paternalistic, then perhaps I have erred in showing my respect for your ideas.


----------



## cuchuflete

By the way, your thread title may reflect your feelings. It has nothing to do with mine.
The highly idealistic France of 1968 was one in which tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest against the foreign policy of the US.  It is not Anti-French to admire that idealism.


----------



## fetchezlavache

number one, who can still call jfk honest after all we know now of his links with somber movements/groups such as the mafia ?

number two, from what i see here, and it's not meant to reflect a subjective view of france, idealism is well dead and even buried. 'les français sont des veaux' said de gaulle, and i don't know if it was true at the time, but it's certainly true now. a flock of obedient and meek sheep. nobody fights anymore, nobody cares about the next person, it's all individualism and combat for _your own_ survival, sod your neighbour if he doesn't make it. i don't call that having noble ideals.


----------



## gaer

Cuchu (and all),

I know nothing about how idealistic France was in 1968, and I'm not sure of the significance of that exact year. I may have missed a lot.

But I would like to point out that in the US, although there was a great deal of talk about "ideals" having to do with changing things, many of them are only happening right now.

Let me make explain why I say this. I have been teaching piano for many years, as I think I've told many people. I teach privately. Ten years ago I may have had one black student. In fact, I may have had 5 black students in all the years prior to that time. It was much the same with Hispanic students in this area.

At this moment more than half my students are Hispanic or black, and they are always among my best students. The reason for this change, I think, is economic. I think there is a more "level playing field" now for people who once were treated as second-class citizens.

I'm not saying everything is wonderful here. We have HUGE problems too, and you all know what they are.

For some people, a few decades back was a much better time here. In some ways, it was for me. Yet for many minority groups, I see much more opportunity and much more hope right now. I see more acceptance of people who are different. My point? I don't really have one. Perhaps I just want to say that things are constantly changing. Some things that are going on right now, here, frighten me greatly. I won't speak of politics or war. Too controversial.

But am I naive to think that it might be the same in France? In other words, some things were undoubtedly better, in the past, but might not other things be better now? And it does seem that right here, HERE, in these forums, WE have an unprecedented chance to reach out globally, to learn, to open our minds, and that may be a new form of idealism that we do not always recognize.

Think also that in spite of a trend towards hard feelings between France and the US, which I personally think is the result of largely ignorant people being influenced by political propaganda, in general those of us who are working hard to learn each other's languages, even people like me who are neophytes in a language like French, don't have TIME for negative sentiments. We are too busy trying to build something. And it is the building of trust between individuals all over the world that is the only antidote to the poison of ethnocentrism and ignorance.

Now, I may be not only an idealist but a fool, but I have to believe that while some things are getting worse, other things are getting better. Otherwise I would not have the strength to get up each day, to face life.

Gaer


----------



## rodin

_Chuchuflete replied :

we could examine whether this is, in fact, a true premise, or if the idealism is really dead, or if it is no more dead then in France--comparing that country in 1968 and today._

*emmpphh ..  I don't know...  
but your statement showed some bias actually
it felt surely anti-french to me as well

Maybe you would like to express it better..*

regards


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I find a lamentable decline in idealism in the US over the past 35 years.



Idealism is dead in the United States? If that were the case, why would the US be actively involved in exporting the IDEAL of democracy to the entire world? Let's remember what the great Churchill said about her, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."


----------



## cuchuflete

rodin said:
			
		

> _Chuchuflete replied :
> 
> we could examine whether this is, in fact, a true premise, or if the idealism is really dead, or if it is no more dead then in France--comparing that country in 1968 and today._
> 
> *emmpphh ..  I don't know...
> but your statement showed some bias actually
> it felt surely anti-french to me as well
> 
> Maybe you would like to express it better..*
> 
> regards



Welcome to the forums Rodin.

If I say that idealism is equally dead in France and in the US, that is not anti-French or anti-US.  It's a personal view that both nations are far less idealistic than they were three decades ago.   

How might I express it better?  Well, here is a try:

In the late 1960's there were visible signs of idealism in both France and in the US.  Today, one has to look very hard to find equivalent signs.

I have not succeeded in finding a single anti-French sentiment here,  because there are none.

regards,
Cuchuflete


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> Idealism is dead in the United States? If that were the case, why would the US be actively involved in exporting the IDEAL of democracy to the entire world? Let's remember what the great Churchill said about her, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."



Hola Caballero,

The US government talks a geat deal about Democracy.  Where are the facts?  In a classic case of economic self-interest, which has guided the foreign policies of both the US and European nations for centuries, the US
granted most-favored nation status to China, which is hardly a paragon of democratic values.  It's all about money Everness!  The US supports, as it has throughout my lifetime, oppressive regimes that share a common enemy, or represent a major market opportunity.  This is very old news.

We withheld diplomatic recognition from Cuba while building up trade with China.  It would be economically inconvenient to use a single standard!
We maintain reasonably close relations with Russia and Egypt, giving enormous monetary aid to the latter, yet that nation does not have democratic elections.

Sorry, I don't confuse political rhetoric from governments spokesmen with reality.   According to the mouthpieces of the current US administration, things are going very well, thank you, in Iraq.

Why don't we see if we can agree as to which are the ten or twenty most repressive, undemocratic governments in the world today, and then examine the 'democracy export' facts in regard to each of them?  I might have to eat crow, or you might back off a little from wholeheartedly embracing the words of W's public relations team.  

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Agnès E.

I'm not used to participate to high-level debates, as I am usually unable to transmit my thoughts by the way of English (my English is too poor for that, I'm afraid).
Nevertheless, I would like to say that, having read all the Culture threads since I registered in WR forum (more than a month, now), I am very surprised to see that someone can see Cuchuflete as an aggressive person.
Although I am not a native English speaker, I understood very clearly that Cuchuflete just stated a fact (not a negative opinion) that is shared by many people (especially in France). Yes, France (I cannot speak about the USA but I have the FEELING anyway that the situation can be taken as similar) is in a crisis nowadays, and people react against this crisis by the natural human reaction : I protect myself and my family, and I don't feel concerned about the rest of the world.
I would just remind that the 60's were a decade of wealthiness, safety (I remember that we never closed our housedoor and no-one taught me that nasty men or children could be a lethal danger for me) and relative innocence. Young people had a future and this let them a free mind to claim for more, for utopia. They felt free to fight against society because they had time and energy for that. They could afterwards come back to a society which they contributed to improve, get integrated into it and have an adult life.
I am afraid this is not anymore the case for the current French youth...


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Caballero,
> 
> The US government talks a geat deal about Democracy.  Where are the facts?  In a classic case of economic self-interest, which has guided the foreign policies of both the US and European nations for centuries, the US
> granted most-favored nation status to China, which is hardly a paragon of democratic values.  It's all about money Everness!  The US supports, as it has throughout my lifetime, oppressive regimes that share a common enemy, or represent a major market opportunity.  This is very old news.
> 
> We withheld diplomatic recognition from Cuba while building up trade with China.  It would be economically inconvenient to use a single standard!
> We maintain reasonably close relations with Russia and Egypt, giving enormous monetary aid to the latter, yet that nation does not have democratic elections.
> 
> Sorry, I don't confuse political rhetoric from governments spokesmen with reality.   According to the mouthpieces of the current US administration, things are going very well, thank you, in Iraq.
> 
> Why don't we see if we can agree as to which are the ten or twenty most repressive, undemocratic governments in the world today, and then examine the 'democracy export' facts in regard to each of them?  I might have to eat crow, or you might back off a little from wholeheartedly embracing the words of W's public relations team.
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu



That's what I call brutal and/or realistic self-criticism. I also believe that self-interest guides our lives as individuals, families and countries. However, the goal of having more countries with democratically-elected governments should improve things globally, even if the US has a hidden agenda. At least, it can't hurt. The only way to combat cynicism is with idealism. 
Gracias varon!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:
			
		

> That's what I call brutal and/or realistic self-criticism. I also believe that self-interest guides our lives as individuals, families and countries. However, the goal of having more countries with democratically-elected governments should improve things globally, even if the US has a hidden agenda. At least, it can't hurt. The only way to combat cynicism is with idealism.
> Gracias varon!



Everness,

Thanks. I agree with your statement about self-interest. It is basic to human behavior. I also agree that more democracy is a worthwhile goal, and how we move towards it--even with other, or hidden, agendas--does not make the goal less desireable.

Yes, it is self-criticism.  I would like my nation to be better than it is.
I would like to see policies that really do promote democracy.  

Un abrazo,
Cuchu


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> That's what I call brutal and/or realistic self-criticism. I also believe that self-interest guides our lives as individuals, families and countries. However, the goal of having more countries with democratically-elected governments should improve things globally, even if the US has a hidden agenda. At least, it can't hurt. The only way to combat cynicism is with idealism.
> Gracias varon!


 
I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Although desirable, democracy just cannot be imposed, and even less, it can't be the surface of a hidden agenda. It doesn't work like that.

I don't want to sound like a culture relativist, but how can we expect that a different culture understand our values of democracy? How can we teach generations that grew up under regimes that we are there to give them the best system of public participation? I think it sounds too naive to believe that invading and bombing a country will give its population ideas of freedom and democracy. Iraq is the perfect example. The Bush Adm. thought that Iraq would be easy and the troops would be welcomed and would finish their "task" within a few months. Two years later, more than a thousand Americans are dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and Iraq is still a mess. 

It is quite obvious that the U.S. foreign policy does not care about freedom and democracy worldwide. As cuchu said, it is old news. Dictatorships in Latin America, Africa and Asia blessed by the U.S. prove this statement to be right. 

Furthermore, a hidden agenda will only bring benefits to that specific agenda, anything else would be inadecuately accomplished. Democracy can't be half-done, it is democracy or it is not, period. And yes, it can hurt. Ask the relatives of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. Ask the Vietnamese.


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Everness,
> 
> Thanks. I agree with your statement about self-interest. It is basic to human behavior. I also agree that more democracy is a worthwhile goal, and how we move towards it--even with other, or hidden, agendas--does not make the goal less desireable.
> 
> Yes, it is self-criticism. I would like my nation to be better than it is.
> I would like to see policies that really do promote democracy.
> 
> Un abrazo,
> Cuchu


 
It is our goal, that's right, but is it any country's goal? I'm not so sure ....


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound like a culture relativist, but how can we expect that a different culture understand our values of democracy? How can we teach generations that grew up under regimes that we are there to give them the best system of public participation? I think it sounds too naive to believe that invading and bombing a country will give its population ideas of freedom and democracy.



First of all, we should bear in mind that democracy has a long history that can be traced back to the Greeks. I don't see any problem with asking countries to look into this alternative way of governing themselves. In the 80's our beautiful Latin America started going out with Miss Democracy and broke up with Mr. Military Dictatorship; so far there have been few or no divorces. It's true that democracy doesn't guarantee any country material prosperity y que en muchos paises la gente, como dice un amigo mio, se esta cagando de hambre. Pero Roma no se construyo en un dia! 
Ah you raise an excelent point regarding the US' invasion of Iraq. Instituting democracy in an undemocratic way gives a new meaning to the word paradox, but life is full of them and we need to learn to live with them!


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> First of all, we should bear in mind that democracy has a long history that can be traced back to the Greeks. I don't see any problem with asking countries to look into this alternative way of governing themselves. In the 80's our beautiful Latin America started going out with Miss Democracy and broke up with Mr. Military Dictatorship; so far there have been few or no divorces. It's true that democracy doesn't guarantee any country material prosperity y que en muchos paises la gente, como dice un amigo mio, se esta cagando de hambre. Pero Roma no se construyo en un dia!
> Ah you raise an excelent point regarding the US' invasion of Iraq. Instituting democracy in an undemocratic way gives a new meaning to the word paradox, but life is full of them and we need to learn to live with them!


 
I guess that's my point! If Rome was not built in a day, and countries like those in Latin America are still going back and forth between democracy and dictatorships, then, how do we expect any other country with no history of democracy to build it from scratch. Nevertheless, my biggest concern here is that--and I'm afraid I may sound too relativist--how do we impose these people some ideas that are not necessarily part of their culture? How dare we impose them in *our own* terms! The Greeks were democratic, yes, but up to a certain extent. They had slaves and women were not worth any more than a pig was. But, despite this, most of those countries do not consider ancient Greek as any of their heritage. It's not part of *their* history, it's *not their* culture. Don't get me wrong, I don't like how women are treated in many Muslim countries. I am appalled with female castration. But imposing foreign concepts of self-government isn't the best method, and certainly, bombing isn't either.  Democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else is just a facade, mere excuses for a different agenda that brings nothing closer to democracy. Sorry.

How did we end here? This has nothing to do with anti-French, no-anti-French sentiments. I apologize...


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> By the way, your thread title may reflect your feelings. It has nothing to do with mine.
> The highly idealistic France of 1968 was one in which tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest against the foreign policy of the US.  It is not Anti-French to admire that idealism.


Well, thousands of people took to the streets in 2003, in the United States, France, and all over Europe, to protest against the preemptive war in Iraq...


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> I guess that's my point! If Rome was not built in a day, and countries like those in Latin America are still going back and forth between democracy and dictatorships, then, how do we expect any other country with no history of democracy to build it from scratch. Nevertheless, my biggest concern here is that--and I'm afraid I may sound too relativist--how do we impose these people some ideas that are not necessarily part of their culture? How dare we impose them in *our own* terms! The Greeks were democratic, yes, but up to a certain extent. They had slaves and women were not worth any more than a pig was. But, despite this, most of those countries do not consider ancient Greek as any of their heritage. It's not part of *their* history, it's *not their* culture. Don't get me wrong, I don't like how women are treated in many Muslim countries. I am appalled with female castration. But imposing foreign concepts of self-government isn't the best method, and certainly, bombing isn't either.  Democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else is just a facade, mere excuses for a different agenda that brings nothing closer to democracy. Sorry.
> 
> How did we end here? This has nothing to do with anti-French, no-anti-French sentiments. I apologize...



I have some questions and comments.

1. What Latin American countries are going back and forth between democracy and dictatorships? 

2. Yes, there's a first time for everything, even for democracy. Iraq and other countries should give democracy a chance. This means, as you say, that they have to start from scratch. Is democracy incompatible with the political and religious histories and current realities of these Asian countries? I'm not quite sure that is the case.

3. You already know my thoughts about any attempt to install democracy through undemocratic means. Will the seed of democracy flourish and grow in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. etc. The American are crossing their fingers that this will happen. Will it happen? I have a bad feeling about the whole thing. Yesterday, the Sunni Muslim sheiks were publicly exhorting followers to strike with force against ethnic Kurds and Shiites, and that ain't good. It's interesting what an Iraqi engineer said, ’’We lived together peacefully for so many years, but now the conflict has started." Are we already missing Saddam?


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, thousands of people took to the streets in 2003, in the United States, France, and all over Europe, to protest against the preemptive war in Iraq...


 Yes, and some of us did the same in little villages in Maine...

I am sure you are doing more than sharing my horror at that war, but I need your help to understand the intent of your post.  Please say more.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I am sure you are doing more than sharing my horror at that war, but I need your help to understand the intent of your post.  Please say more.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cuchu


I'm questioning whether your perception that people are not as engaged in politics as they were in the sixities(/seventies?), in France and the U.S., is accurate.

The Vietnam war did generate large protests, but I've read that people only started protesting it after it had been going on for about half a decade. The initial reaction of the public was apathy. Contrast that with the latest war in Iraq, which was protested against even before it had started.

Sure, no one burns bras anymore, but...  

To make myself perfectly clear, I was making a comment on something you wrote in your first reply to this thread:



> If you find France to be as idealistic today as I found it in 1968, I would be grateful if you could offer facts to persuade the members of the forum, me included, to agree with you.
> 
> I find a lamentable decline in idealism in the US over the past 35 years. I believe there has been a similar decline in most of Europe. That is also lamentable.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the follow-up.  I agree that people were quicker to protest the current war than most were in the 1960's.  Major US military involvement began during the presidency of John Kennedy, but large protests didn't begin until after his assassination, and were in response to the escalation of the war during the term of Lyndon Johnson...some years later.  

(For those who don't know, the war had begun long before the Kennedy presidency, during the time of French colonial presence in Vietnam, especially from 1946 to 1954.  American involvement was minor before Kennedy took office.  During his presidency, Jan. 1961 to Nov. 1963, a large U.S. military force intervened.)

I think the protests against the Iraq war are a good sign that we are not all completely brain dead.  Whether they represent a broad political involvement by people in any country is not yet clear.  I am not aware of any major ongoing anti-war protests in the US or elsewhere. 

Are the anti-Iraq war protests comparable to the idealism of the 1960s?
That earlier idealism was involved with many aspects of society, and not just protests against a war.  European and US society changed a lot.  Individual rights were discussed and strengthened, as were the rights of groups including women.  [In France, labor unions and students found common cause.  In the US they were mostly opposed to each other.]

While I'm glad for the anti-war activities in 2003 and 2004, they seem to have been more an 'event' than a movement driven by any enduring idealism.  

I now have sons who are about the same age as I was in the late 1960s.
Based on what I see and hear from them, and from their friends, those concerned with any major changes in society are a tiny minority. 

One of my sons is living in Europe, and tells me that things are the same there among his fellow students.  This is no scientific sample, and I don't want to present it as such.  However, with the substantial exception of the protests against the Iraq war, I am not aware of any idealism comparable to that of the late 1960s.

regards,
Cuchu







			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm questioning whether your perception that people are not as engaged in politics as they were in the sixities(/seventies?), in France and the U.S., is accurate.
> 
> The Vietnam war did generate large protests, but I've read that people only started protesting it after it had been going on for about half a decade. The initial reaction of the public was apathy. Contrast that with the latest war in Iraq, which was protested against even before it had started.
> 
> Sure, no one burns bras anymore, but...
> 
> To make myself perfectly clear, I was making a comment on something you wrote in your first reply to this thread:


----------



## fetchezlavache

cuchu, i couldn't agree more. 

i don't know about the us side of course, but what you described about europe and the feelings here, the implication, or rather lack thereof, in political and social concern, everything, follows my observation to the letter.


----------



## Allanis

_



Chuchuflete replied :

we could examine whether this is, in fact, a true premise, or if the idealism is really dead, or if it is no more dead then in France--comparing that country in 1968 and today.

*emmpphh .. I don't know...*
*but your statement showed some bias actually*
*it felt surely anti-french to me as well*

*Maybe you would like to express it better..*

Click to expand...

 _

Hi Rodin ! 

I wouldn't be so much bothered about Chuchu attitude !
it is all about the US perception of the R.o.W rest of the world
it's exactly the same thing as for french fries= _freedom fries_.
But I think, as you, that this is somewhat hurtful ( beyond being 
laughable) .. and I don't honestly see how belittling all the others 
earn any better standing to the US image, let alone winning hearts&minds.

To make it clear if one says :

France is any more as idealistic as it was in the '60s 
this does not make US any better on its own part !!

Moderators be more moderate.. pleaaaaaaaaseee !


----------



## Benjy

what is with you? why are you bringing what was an interesting thread back down to the gutter... 

have you ever tried being an american in france? or even a perceived american in france (you may have noted that i'm english)? i have had people yell at me.. stones thrown.. food sometimes aswell. you know why? because it was know that the people i hung about with during my two year stay in france were for the most part american. i got lumped in the same panier. so would you please stop with this crusade, and get back to the interesting discussion about politics. 

people are the same the world over.

many thanks 
ben.


			
				Allanis said:
			
		

> Hi Rodin !
> 
> I wouldn't be so much bothered about Chuchu attitude !
> it is all about the US perception of the R.o.W rest of the world
> it's exactly the same thing as for french fries= _freedom fries_.
> But I think, as you, that this is somewhat hurtful ( beyond being
> laughable) .. and I don't honestly see how belittling all the others
> earn any better standing to the US image, let alone winning hearts&minds.
> 
> To make it clear if one says :
> 
> France is any more as idealistic as it was in the '60s
> this does not make US any better on its own part !!
> 
> Moderators be more moderate.. pleaaaaaaaaseee !


----------



## gaer

Allanis said:
			
		

> Hi Rodin !
> 
> I wouldn't be so much bothered about Chuchu attitude !
> it is all about the US perception of the R.o.W rest of the world
> it's exactly the same thing as for french fries= _freedom fries_.
> But I think, as you, that this is somewhat hurtful ( beyond being
> laughable) .. and I don't honestly see how belittling all the others
> earn any better standing to the US image, let alone winning hearts&minds.


I find it totally astounding that you got that impression from Cuchu. I don't know what else to say. I'm speechless.

G


----------



## fra

Je ne sais pas...
I will try to explain my few convinctions in English..
I came to France in September from Italy. I'm studying here and my projects are to stay in Paris for 3 years.
People here are kind, disponible, if you manage to show them that you don't want to take advantage on them, but you only want to communicate, to know better where you are living.
they are closed, suspicious, but once they trust in you they become more generous that one could imagine.
So, good relationships between two people are always possible.
Maybe the ideologic situation is worse than in '68, and I think Italy and France are really near from this point of view- my parents demonstrated against the governement for a better foreign politics, for a better university, for a better life for women...- but things have really improved, as many of the problems shown in those years have been solved.
Now there are new problems, and maybe less feeling of fighting.
But looking in the everyday life, I see young people like my brother, who is taking care of the common informatic room in his school, and lot of people making volountary works. 
I don't know if these little helps to a better society are really useful.
I think people don't change from generation to generation, and that things will go worse and worse until a new revolution, and so on.
Waiting, I would like to make something to better the life of people more or less next to me, with my future work or in a part of my free time.
To decourage has no sense: it isn't useful to anyone, and it makes you feel sad and miss the good old times.
Now, it's better tostop and go to bed!
fra


----------



## gaer

fra said:
			
		

> Je ne sais pas...
> I will try to explain my few convinctions in English..
> I came to France in September from Italy. I'm studying here and my projects are to stay in Paris for 3 years.
> People here are kind, disponible, if you manage to show them that you don't want to take advantage on them, but you only want to communicate, to know better where you are living.
> they are closed, suspicious, but once they trust in you they become more generous that one could imagine.
> So, good relationships between two people are always possible.
> Maybe the ideologic situation is worse than in '68, and I think Italy and France are really near from this point of view- my parents demonstrated against the governement for a better foreign politics, for a better university, for a better life for women...- but things have really improved, as many of the problems shown in those years have been solved.
> Now there are new problems, and maybe less feeling of fighting.
> But looking in the everyday life, I see young people like my brother, who is taking care of the common informatic room in his school, and lot of people making volountary works.
> I don't know if these little helps to a better society are really useful.
> I think people don't change from generation to generation, and that things will go worse and worse until a new revolution, and so on.
> Waiting, I would like to make something to better the life of people more or less next to me, with my future work or in a part of my free time.
> To decourage has no sense: it isn't useful to anyone, and it makes you feel sad and miss the good old times.
> Now, it's better tostop and go to bed!
> fra


So that people might better understand you: disponible=accessible, if I am guessing your meaning.

And with decourage you mean "discourage", I think.

I don't know much about the relationship between Italy and France. But I noticed that in a book by Eco, one that I have not yet finished, he seems to assume that people reading his book, in Italian, will have no problems reading French, because his book is full of French and it is not translated. 

On the other hand, when he uses German, even simple things are translated. This made me think that it is very common for people in Italy to know French, and someone else said that this is so. Do you agree?

Gaer


----------



## fra

People who lives in the North of Italy, mainly in Piemont, speak a dialect near to French. Lots of words in Italian and French are also quite similar, and the text's structure is more or less the same.
But it isn't true that every italian can speak or listen to french. They can understand the general meaning of a text, however.


----------



## gaer

fra said:
			
		

> People who lives in the North of Italy, mainly in Piemont, speak a dialect near to French. Lots of words in Italian and French are also quite similar, and the text's structure is more or less the same.
> But it isn't true that every italian can speak or listen to french. They can understand the general meaning of a text, however.


If Italians can get the general meaning of text, that's a big thing. But I believe Eco has also studied French and enjoys using it in his books. 

Gaer


----------



## fetchezlavache

fra said:
			
		

> They can understand the general meaning of a text, however.




huh ?????????? my grandparents were italian, they came to france when they were quite young, and to their death they were still not speaking perfect french, let alone understand it. 

i don't know where you got this idea fra. really i'm puzzled.


----------



## Outsider

Not long ago, it was customary for high society people and intellectuals to speak French all across Europe, even in Russia!


----------



## Agnès E.

That's true, Outsider, and before that it was Latin, as far as Europe was concerned.
Does someone know which language was mainly spoken, some centuries ago, in Asia ?


----------



## Outsider

Asia is huge. But Arabic was widespread from the Middle East to India for a while, Chinese in the Far East, Russian in North and Central Asia...


----------



## Wordsmyth

fra said:
			
		

> [...] Lots of words in Italian and French are also quite similar, and the text's structure is more or less the same.
> But it isn't true that every italian can speak or listen to french. They can understand the general meaning of a text, however.


  



			
				fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> huh ?????????? my grandparents were italian, they came to france when they were quite young, and to their death they were still not speaking perfect french, let alone understand it.
> 
> i don't know where you got this idea fra. really i'm puzzled.


  ??


Welcome fra (et salut fetch).

I've put comments on your posts, & further thoughts, in a new thread (we've definitely moved off "Anti-French sentiment"  ), called... hmmm ... "*Understanding languages you've never learnt*" -- still in 'Cultural Issues' (i.e. the Sports/Apple-pie-throwing/Nutella-eating Forum). ------->>>>>  

W 

PS. Can I make a plea to have a 1st April Smiley added to the selection? (maybe useful all year round!!)


----------



## gaer

Outsider said:
			
		

> Not long ago, it was customary for high society people and intellectuals to speak French all across Europe, even in Russia!


Actually, I think it is still assumed that all of us do or should understand many French phrases, because 9 times out of 10 in English books, when something is in another language, italicized and not translated, it's French.

I think part of the reason I decided to give French an attempt was so that I might understand some of those phrases.

I think the French language is in no danger or losing it's respect in the world. 

Gaer


----------



## Sev

I can't agree with the statement that idealism is dead in France.

Of course, we can't say that there is a great majority of young people having the same kind of idealistic ideas than in the 60'/70's.

Nevertheless, I know many persons around me who militate for a better world. The problem I think is that these persons (me included, but I'm trying to cure myself[not very good english?sorry]) are fighting for one particular cause.  For the respect of social rights, protection of nature, against war, against GMO's...and thousand of other causes. If some of them only care about their particular cause, most of them have a global view of what the problems of the world are, and of how we should change things for it to get better. But as they are "split" in very different movements, we can't see them, we can't see those people fighting everyday.
For example, people of the anti-globalization movement (the term I want to use is in French : _altermondialistes,_and not antimondialisation, but I don't know the english equivalent sorry) are more and more numerous, and their ideas are sprading all over the world, France included. And if THEY are not idealistic, tell me who is.

Sev, who still hopes and fights for a better world.


----------



## Everness

Sev said:
			
		

> I can't agree with the statement that idealism is dead in France.



My problem is a bit larger. I can't agree with the statement that idealism is dead. Period. It's a baseless and void generalization. It might be an individual's perception but his/her feeling doesn't represent the millions of people who live in a particular country. We might be projecting our own pessimism or cynicism onto an entire country or the whole world. But that doesn't mean that idealism is dead. We might be dead. But that's another story!


----------



## Sev

Everness said:
			
		

> It might be an individual's perception but his/her feeling doesn't represent the millions of people who live in a particular country. We might be projecting our own pessimism or cynicism onto an entire country or the whole world.



Yes of course what we all wrote on this forum is our point of view, based on what we can see in our country. It does not pretend to represent the millions of people who live in our country.
I just think that what they want to say by "idealism is dead" is that in the 60's and 70's (in France at least, sorry but I can't speak about stg I don't know) idealism was "visible" and a global movement, a mass movement. Now it's different.
For me idealism is still there but in a different way, a way that maybe people who think idealim is dead can't see.


----------



## Everness

Sev said:
			
		

> Yes of course what we all wrote on this forum is our point of view, based on what we can see in our country. It does not pretend to represent the millions of people who live in our country.
> I just think that what they want to say by "idealism is dead" is that in the 60's and 70's (in France at least, sorry but I can't speak about stg I don't know) idealism was "visible" and a global movement, a mass movement. Now it's different.
> For me idealism is still there but in a different way, a way that maybe people who think idealim is dead can't see.



Idealism is intrisical to the human condition. The problem we have in this thread is that we are associating it with a particular time and a particular content. I think that people today are as idealistic as they were in the sixties. The content of the ideal has probably changed and you might think it's at odds with what inspired people 40, 80, 1000 years ago. I believe that today's idealism is more individualistic and has to do with self-actualization. But it's idealism nevertheless.


----------



## RODGER

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> number one, who can still call jfk honest after all we know now of his links with somber movements/groups such as the mafia ?
> 
> number two, from what i see here, and it's not meant to reflect a subjective view of france, idealism is well dead and even buried. 'les français sont des veaux' said de gaulle, and i don't know if it was true at the time, but it's certainly true now. a flock of obedient and meek sheep. nobody fights anymore, nobody cares about the next person, it's all individualism and combat for _your own_ survival, sod your neighbour if he doesn't make it. i don't call that having noble ideals.


 
De Gaulle said "les français sont des veaux" "the french are cattle" and yet they loved him for it. He was recently voted the greatest frenchman of all time in an opinion poll. When I was in Algeria, the algerians used to say "les français sont des jaloux" "the french are envious"  and this maybe has a lot to do with the fragile nature of present day french society. 

Rodger


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

Anyone who holds the view that idealism is dead or dying has watched too much news. For every one act of bastardry reported thousands of glorious moments are ignored.


Robert


----------

