Thread: Why are they called Americans?

I already explained that in THIS post. About the Dutch and the Netherlands. As for Holland, there's only 2 provinces in the Netherlands called Holland.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Franco-American relations have always puzzled me. As far as I understand it there was a time when they were so poor that French Fries were renamed 'Freedom Fries'. Or perhaps that was urban legend. Where does the poor relations stem from? Was it from the occupation or is it a more recent thing? I seem to recall that the French and the Americans exchanged hefty monuments... I vaguely recall French involvement in the Statue of Liberty (though I could easily be wrong).

The Freedom Fries was something done in the Congressional lunch room. It made me embarassed to be an American, especially as those are more Belgian. It was done in response to France having the temerity to suggest that the evidence of Iraqi WMD was poor.

Franco-American relations have had peaks and valleys over the years. The countries went through a honeymoon period when Jefferson was the diplomat, but seemed to have soured somewhat after WWII when France was struggling with the idea that the new international language of diplomacy was English. Throw in the Reagan/Thatcher era policies running counter to French policies and you end up with a rocky relationship.

Sarkozy is very interested in mending relationships with the UK and US and adopting some of the liberal economic policies (liberal in the economic sense, not in the American political sense). So that's helped repair things.

Originally Posted by plor

And at least to my recollection the French never occupied the USA proper, but had land that is now a part of the USA (along with the Spanish, Dutch, Russians, Swedes, Mexicans, and obviously British).

Considering that we talk of the British colonies declaring independence, not becoming autonomous, the reasonable interpretation is that Britain was occupying the colonies. France occupied land that became the US when it became independent of France. True, however, that France did not occupy any part of the US after it became the US.

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Franco-American relations have always puzzled me. As far as I understand it there was a time when they were so poor that French Fries were renamed 'Freedom Fries'. Or perhaps that was urban legend. Where does the poor relations stem from? Was it from the occupation or is it a more recent thing? I seem to recall that the French and the Americans exchanged hefty monuments... I vaguely recall French involvement in the Statue of Liberty (though I could easily be wrong).

In more recent times Jacques Chirac and his American opposite seemed to not get on but since the election of Sarkosy things seem to have perked up. Am I right? I ut it down to Sarkosy's schmoozing

As has already been mentioned, Franco-US relations went downhill a bit following WWII. They didn't agree with the regime that was being implemented and didn't want to be part of NATO. France has always been something of the odd-man-out in this respect. I'm sure that the "special" relationship between the UK and US also rubs them the wrong way. I tend to chalk it up to a once great power having trouble letting go of their leadership position (culturally as well as politically) following WWII. Hopefully things will improve - but like anything, its cyclical.

Jordan

Originally Posted by They Call Me Blockhead

Up until the Louisiana Purchase.

That was French land - it didn't become part of the USA until the USA purchased it. Would you also say that the Russians occupied the USA until the USA bought Alaska? Silly

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

there ya go then.

Right back at you

Originally Posted by plor

Are you forgetting the war of 1812? The British did not occupy all that much, but we have been occupied to some extent after independence. Also, depending on how you look at the Civil war, the USA was occupied by the CSA in different regions for ~4 years.

And at least to my recollection the French never occupied the USA proper, but had land that is now a part of the USA (along with the Spanish, Dutch, Russians, Swedes, Mexicans, and obviously British).

I was replying to the assertion that the USA had been occupied by the British (which suggests - to me at least - an image of a foreign power exercising military and political control over an entire nation.) That's a stretch considering that the British only occupied some water and a few acres of land for a very short period of time during war. So, I think you're right, but it just didn't fit my mood to include that in response to this post: "That's a bit of a cheap shot at WW2 (I think) wasn't it? Because since then we honestly haven't been occupied (at least not since the USA was occupied by the french and british.) since or before that. [speaking of the Netherlands]"

And yes, the USA did occupy itself during the Civil War (assuming the north's official position that the south never really seceded)

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

Franco-American relations have always puzzled me. As far as I understand it there was a time when they were so poor that French Fries were renamed 'Freedom Fries'. Or perhaps that was urban legend. Where does the poor relations stem from? Was it from the occupation or is it a more recent thing? I seem to recall that the French and the Americans exchanged hefty monuments... I vaguely recall French involvement in the Statue of Liberty (though I could easily be wrong).

In more recent times Jacques Chirac and his American opposite seemed to not get on but since the election of Sarkosy things seem to have perked up. Am I right? I ut it down to Sarkosy's schmoozing

The US public view of the French soured immediately following the French goverment's stronger than average condemnation of the USA going to war in Iraq. The war was quite popular among United Statians at that time compared to now voters are so fickle

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I already explained that in THIS post. About the Dutch and the Netherlands. As for Holland, there's only 2 provinces in the Netherlands called Holland.

I don't think that is satifactory. Try again. While you're at it, explain why so much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

First of all I do believe I was misquoted by Hoglahoo there. (no harm done just pointing it out.)

Well, whether you find it satisfactory or not, it's the only explanation you're going to get.

As for the netherlands being below sea level.

Because we could.

Nah really that's the reason, we needed land, under the sea there was land...all we had to do was remove the sea and keep it out. We've done pretty well so far wouldn't you say? The sea is still....well...in the sea. And the land is still land.

Now I come to think of it there is an AWFUL lot of unclaimed land just off the coast of Scotland- called 'the North Sea'. I reckon we should drain that and reclaim the land.

Although with the oil reserves there it would risk Scotland being invaded for 'political' reasons *ahem*

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

First of all I do believe I was misquoted by Hoglahoo there. (no harm done just pointing it out.)

Well, whether you find it satisfactory or not, it's the only explanation you're going to get.

As for the netherlands being below sea level.

Because we could.

Nah really that's the reason, we needed land, under the sea there was land...all we had to do was remove the sea and keep it out. We've done pretty well so far wouldn't you say? The sea is still....well...in the sea. And the land is still land.

I hope you realize I am playing with you. I have many friends in your country. I love them dearly. I personally have big respect for the brilliant spirit of the Nederlanders. I am reminded of that spirit everytime I visit my brother who lives on Riverside Drive overlooking the mighty river Henry Hudson explored in New Amsterdam.

I do, don't worry. I'm just playing along.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

First of all I do believe I was misquoted by Hoglahoo there. (no harm done just pointing it out.)

Well, whether you find it satisfactory or not, it's the only explanation you're going to get.

Copied and pasted, Mr. Impaler! Now at least I understand why you're all wet