Ooo-la-la

February 13, 2003 9:42 AM

Ooo-la-la A cheese-eating surrender monkey bites back.
posted by skellum (42 comments total)

I believe the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is from Groundskeeper Willie, not Bart Simpson. A minor lapse, but one that any North American is likely to spot and conveys a sense of cultural distance that the author otherwise seems to be attempting to erode.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:50 AM on February 13, 2003

I am surprised that no one brings up the issue of the Revolutionary War of 1776. Way I figure it, without the French, we'd still be paying a whopping tea tax. WW2 was tit for tat, and we're on a level playing ground now, right?
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:57 AM on February 13, 2003

I think the French have done nothing, whatever, to merit attention on this matter. Fresh from Nazi collaboration, they fought with unremitting savagery (albeit eventually surrendering avec fromage) to defend colonial conquests in Viet Nam and Algeria and thereafter have "accepted" a large immigrant minority only insofar as to consign them to the worst jobs and the most dismal, segregated neighborhoods. They are now defending economic arrangements in the Middle East with Saddam and others which they know will be shattered by a US-led imposition of order and civil, pro-American, regimes.
posted by MattD at 10:03 AM on February 13, 2003

US-led imposition of order and civil, pro-American, regimes

you make that sound like a fait accompli, MattD. Is my jaw dropping cos I've just scoffed a heavy frog's leg?

Interesting analogy extending, DOS. Check this on the current acute perils of analogising.
posted by skellum at 10:10 AM on February 13, 2003

we were simplistic cowboys before they were the axis of weasels. some can dish it out, but can't take it.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:11 AM on February 13, 2003

A good, passionate peace. All this talk around here of "banning" Evian and Perrier and hurling invective misses the point so completely. (The NY Post cover of the cemetery claiming France has forgotten what we did for them? Just gross.) When we finally go to war, and we will, our case will have necessarily been made much stronger because of the insistence of our ALLIES to make it stronger.

For the against-war-at-this-juncture crowd who think we need more evidence, and think you do not have a voice, you're wrong. France and Germany are providing that voice for you.

Do you expect your friend to tell you if you have a booger hanging from your nostril or spinach in your teeth? I do.
posted by vito90 at 10:13 AM on February 13, 2003

techgnollogic: Because, after-all, there's no difference in severity between "simplistic cowboy" and "ally of Saddam Hussein", right?
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:15 AM on February 13, 2003

I guess I know what I was thinking. That should be piece, not peace, but a decent malaprop anyway.
posted by vito90 at 10:15 AM on February 13, 2003

Throw in the opinion of the French ambassador to the UK, if you like.

We are told that the issue is the protection of Turkey. To assume that Turkey needs to be protected from retaliation by Iraq is to assume a military intervention against Iraq. This means we are, in fact, requested to support Nato's endorsement of the principle of a preventive war against Iraq. We cannot back Nato's involvement in a war against Iraq even before the question of the use of force has been put to the Security Council, let alone authorised by it. This would mean putting the Nato cart before the UN horse.

France is not posturing. Neither at Nato, nor at the UN. As for the argument that France is chickening out, I would merely suggest trying it out on the families of the French soldiers who paid the price of blood in the Balkan wars, in Afghanistan against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, or in the Gulf War. France was the first European supplier of air power during the Nato-led operations in Kosovo. She remains the largest single contributor of troops to Nato operations in the Balkans. Together with Britain, France has undertaken a major increase in defence spending to face the new threats and challenges confronting us all. These facts speak for themselves.

Or the French PM's comment in response to Bush's "the game is over": "It's not a game, it's not over."

Personally, I think the Quai d'Orsay is playing a blinder here. Someone has to.

They are now defending economic arrangements in the Middle East with Saddam and others which they know will be shattered by a US-led imposition of order and civil, pro-American, regimes.

Wow, MattD: has the army signed you up to burn all the records of how Dummy Ronsfeld supplied Saddam with anthrax? And do you remember the last time the CIA helped impose a 'civil, pro-American regime' on Iraq? You know, the one that smoothed the path for Saddam's rise to power? Someone beat you around the head pretty badly with the naive stick.
posted by riviera at 10:16 AM on February 13, 2003

World opinion is squarely against the war-- why should anyone expect a democratic government to stand for something their citizens are against?
posted by cell divide at 10:23 AM on February 13, 2003

You know, the one that smoothed the path for Saddam's rise to power?

Huh? Do you know anything about how Saddam came to power?
posted by ednopantz at 10:27 AM on February 13, 2003

Fresh from Nazi collaboration, they fought with unremitting savagery (albeit eventually surrendering avec fromage) to defend colonial conquests in Viet Nam and Algeria... [emphasis mine]

It's just plain inaccurate, MattD, to describe to post-war French regime as "collaborators." As you should know, the post-war leadership of France was largely drawn from the "Free French": those who fought under de Gaulle against the Germans (though, except for a brief stint as President at the end of the war, de Gaulle himself was not a part of the government until after the Algerian debacle had begun.) The Free French government in WWII was acknowledged as a the de jure government of France by the Allied Powers, and its Army suffered over 200,000 deaths in battle (comparable to American and British casualties). The actual collaborators were pretty thoroughly purged from French government, and more then a few of them were executed.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2003

than
posted by mr_roboto at 11:04 AM on February 13, 2003

ednopantz: It's so easy to arch eyebrows and skeptitalize. How about actually backing up what you're saying. Do you know how Saddam came to power? Tell us. At the very least point to some web resources.

(Doing what I'm saying.)
posted by ?! at 11:12 AM on February 13, 2003

Do you know anything about how Saddam came to power?

Um, yeah? Saddam's role after the 1963 coup that (briefly, but significantly) brought his faction of Ba'athists to power allowed him to establish his credentials and reputation, which ultimately helped him in 1968 when Al-Bakr took over, again with CIA assistance. Funny coincidence, wasn't it, that both he and Bush Sr. were on the CIA payroll at the time?

(This also makes interesting reading.)
posted by riviera at 11:19 AM on February 13, 2003

I believe the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is from Groundskeeper Willie, not Bart Simpson.

Simpson, Simpson ... French, is it?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:32 AM on February 13, 2003

Well, I certainly understand why the French have their panties in a bunch. For a number of years they've been trash-talking the US (fairly loudly and agressively in fact). And on the whole, the US has not responded. What has been going on recently, however, behind the scenes, is something extremely disturbing to the French. They are used to trashing the US. And they have been moving towards putting together a European coalition to serve as an informal center of influence capable of rivalling the US in global influence (the EU folks in Brussels, the transition to the Euro, and a number of things like that are part of it).

The unusual thing that is now taking place is a peculiar shift. France and Germany have been used to speaking on behalf of Europe - since they are certainly by far the dominant players in Europe, and have been positioning their Europe as a power equal to the US on the global stage ... and in fact have been loudly proclaiming that the US needs their consensus on any actions, instead of acting "unilaterally".

What has unfolded, however, is a situation in which France and Germany are suddenly no longer capable of even saying they speak on behalf of Europe. It started with the European leaders publishing the letter in the Wall Street Journal just prior to the Powell speech. Was further complicated by support from several eastern bloc countries after the speech.

France and Germany were the leaders of newly emerging European power, able (and even proud) to trash talk the US, thoroughly convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority, and confident in their attempt to paint George Bush as a "cowboy" that acts all alone to the detriment of the world. Suddenly, however, the US is no longer ignoring the usual French trash talking but rather is talking back (causing the French, of course, to whine - as in this FPP's link). Suddenly it's getting harder to make the case for "unilateralism", when the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, Slovakia, Bulgaria - to mention a few - have come out publically in support of the US.

France, in other words, in attempting to assert what it took to be it's growing influence, instead is finding itself in danger of being marginalized. I can see why the French are miffed.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:03 PM on February 13, 2003

At least the journalist is clearly French. She was surprised to find people "who didn't understand this war" and "wanted their voices to be heard"...at Cal-Berkeley?

Next week, in Le Monde, our reporters on the scene in Madison, Boulder, Eugene and Greenwich Village talk to normal, average American youth who are confused about this war and its portrayal in the media.
posted by Kevs at 12:09 PM on February 13, 2003

It started with the European leaders publishing the letter in the Wall Street Journal just prior to the Powell speech.

Well, the Czech government is now distancing itself from Havel's signature on that letter, saying it was a bit of trouble-stirring from the now-former leader: "Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda said Havel's decision was personal and did not reflect the official foreign policy of the Czech Republic." And most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are essentially US client states when it comes to military matters, so we can imagine why they do what the Pentagon tells them.

And I can imagine why the French and Germans don't want to be associated with many of that motley list you came up with: discount the burgeoning fascists -- I'm sure you just love Berlusconi's business ethics, Midas! -- and the rebranded Communists who lead Poland and Hungary, and you don't see much moral stiffness there, apart from Tony Blair's Gladstonian monomania.

France, in other words, in attempting to assert what it took to be it's growing influence, instead is finding itself in danger of being marginalized.

That's a fine piece of wishful thinking you've got going there. As if becoming lickspittles to the Bush administration isn't a marginalisation in and of itself? Pull the other one.
posted by riviera at 12:23 PM on February 13, 2003

Also on the subject:

Wimps, weasels and monkeys - the US media view of 'perfidious France'

The story behind the mainstreaming of the Simpsons phrase is also related there:

If such language is proving a headache for the diplomats, then spare a thought for the French translators, who have struggled for words to convey the full force of the venom. "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - a phrase coined by Bart Simpson but made acceptable in official diplomatic channels around the globe by Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for the rightwing weekly National Review (according to Goldberg) - was finally rendered: " Primates capitulards et toujours en quête de fromages ". And the New York Post's "axis of weasel" lost much of its venom when translated as a limp " axe de faux jetons " (literally, "axis of devious characters").
posted by dgaicun at 12:39 PM on February 13, 2003

dgaicun, I love that the article to which you link includes as a postscript the same correction (Willie, not Bart) that Pseudoephedrine makes in the first post on this thread. It's good to see a journalist owning up to an honest mistake.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:00 PM on February 13, 2003

Journalistic integrity at its finest!
posted by dgaicun at 1:25 PM on February 13, 2003

How about a referendum? i.e.:

Iraq?
a) I'd hit it.
b) not so much.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:56 PM on February 13, 2003

thereafter have "accepted" a large immigrant minority only insofar as to consign them to the worst jobs and the most dismal, segregated neighborhoods.

well, you know, at least the French (or should I say "fucking frogs"?) didn't kidnap hundreds of thousands of men and women, used them as slaves and didn't free them only after the carnage of a Civil war

wanna talk about bad jobs for minorities and segregated neighborhoods? well...
posted by matteo at 2:54 PM on February 13, 2003

Great link, dgaicun! "Primates capitulards et toujours en quête de fromages" is priceless.
posted by languagehat at 3:01 PM on February 13, 2003

"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion" - Ross Perot
posted by H. Roark at 3:46 PM on February 13, 2003

I was going to post something insightful - then I realized I'd be wasting my time. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the reactions of those who slam France for having the guts to do what the American public can't or won't do - stand up to the Bush administration. If it's "unpatriotic" to criticize a government that slowly destroys its own infrastructure to wage war on those who cannot threaten us, all the while claiming that they're doing it for our benefit, then I'm unpatriotic. Don't get me wrong - I love my country. I just don't like the chuckleheads running it into the ground.

Our economy continues to spiral downward while our freedoms are being destroyed. Our financial futures are plundered by our government in order to pay for rash decisions now. I hope we make it through - it's starting to look grim.

Go ahead, flame away.
posted by FormlessOne at 4:00 PM on February 13, 2003

Most Americans are content to only know one thing about every country in the world. It let's them have an easy reference in their minds when they here something about that country and allows them to not have to think too hard. It's a great system, really.

Canada: cold
France: surrendered in WWII
Germany: Nazis
Britain: We saved their ass in WWII
Japan: small, effecient electronics
Australia: the place where every single native animal can kill you
Iraq: EVIL!!!!
Iran: Didn't you just ask me about them?
posted by Space Coyote at 4:17 PM on February 13, 2003

It's a simple fact that bashing the French is so much fun because they are such pompous snobs. Even though I do agree with them about the war.
posted by Slagman at 4:49 PM on February 13, 2003

What FormlessOne said.
posted by dejah420 at 4:54 PM on February 13, 2003

Way I figure it, without the French, we'd still be paying a whopping tea tax.

Agreed, DenOfSizer. An excellent book on the subject is "Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light" by Susan Dunn, which examines the French role in the American Revolution, and how in turn the later influenced the French Revolution.
posted by homunculus at 4:58 PM on February 13, 2003

"I was on campus at Berkeley three weeks ago and I met some worried students there."

Would someone please alert the President? There seems to be some consternation among the undergrads in mini-Moscow.
posted by hama7 at 8:01 PM on February 13, 2003

hama7 - a ripe fart for that quip (no hard feelings though...)
posted by troutfishing at 8:07 PM on February 13, 2003

Or, more to the point, how about the origins of fascism in the US
posted by troutfishing at 8:11 PM on February 13, 2003

well, you know, at least the French (or should I say "fucking frogs"?) didn't kidnap hundreds of thousands of men and women, used them as slaves and didn't free them only after the carnage of a Civil war

Yes. All of those overwhelmingly black islands in the Caribbean that speak French do so because the inhabitants, who freely chose to emigrate from their native lands in favor of being whipped and raped by overseers while being worked to death in non-French plantations, thought it sounded purty and learned it in high school.

And there was certainly never a slave rebellion in Haiti, which is why nobody ever learns about Toussaint L'Overture, whose nonexistent francophone name is likewise a pure and utter coincidence, because the French didn't take slaves.

And of course France never went directly to the source to just oppress black people what had been their own lands -- we know this because if they had, they might have faced some sort of colonial struggles in Africa, and, well, that's just silly. The multitude of francophone Africans in seemingly-postcolonial lands is, again, either a pure coincidence or perhaps a vile scheme of the Brits or the sinister Dutch trying to deprive France of its rightful glory.

I mean, come on. I've gotten tired of the France-bashing, even. But that assertion is just [red foreman]dumbassed.[/red foreman]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:12 PM on February 13, 2003

It's a simple fact that bashing the French is so much fun because they are such pompous snobs.
What, you met all of them?! And they're all pompous snobs? I didn't realize...
For a French perpective see: Francophobia and Why France Must Use its Veto.
posted by talos at 8:01 AM on February 14, 2003

ROU,

the point is, Americans can crap on the French for all the reasons they want. But slavery and racism are not a good argument, since America's record on thse issues is not, excuse me for the pun, lily-white

(yeah, those evil Caribbean French slave-owners were bad, bad bad! But I still missed the part about black slaves picking cotton in Provence, and segregation laws in southern France until the 1960's)
posted by matteo at 8:02 AM on February 14, 2003

Technically, black slaves weren't picking cotton in Provence because the French made them pick it in Louisiana, which as you'll recall was in fact a French colony until Thomas Jefferson bought it from them. Once the French outlawed slavery, by the way, in 1848, they started using convicts to do the same work the slaves had been doing over in the colonies, despite an incredible rate of casualties.

But, if we want to talk about French racism, French treatment of blacks while bad, pales in comparison to their treatments of the Algerians. Blacks may have been lower class in the 1950's in America, but they weren't being systematically rounded up and tortured by the government to extract confessions from and intimidate the native population of Algeria.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:45 AM on February 14, 2003

therefore, Americans can lecture the French about France's terrible record on race issues and not look like hypocrites, right?

also:

Blacks may have been lower class in the 1950's in America

they "may" have, yes. sometimes. I guess you mean Northern blacks, right? Because in the South "lower class" does not even begin to describe the situation (warning: second link is graphic -- history often is, after all)
posted by matteo at 3:42 PM on February 14, 2003

matteo, my point wasn't that the French were some manner of monsters.

My point was merely that what you said was, empirically, nonsense. So far from the true state of the world that I had to say something.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:09 PM on February 14, 2003

Re: The French have forgotten

Maybe they're just remembering that 20 million Russians died fighting too?
posted by drezdn at 12:10 AM on February 15, 2003

David Warrens Love Letter to France.
posted by grahamwell at 1:52 PM on February 15, 2003