Unfortunately xenophobic reactions to all-things French was ingrained in the collective American mindset as far back as the seventeenth century. This in large part had to do with religious conflict (Roman Catholic versus Protestant) and the overall history of Anglo-French relations going back to the Middle Ages. I honestly don't know where the superiority complex comes from though; if I hear one more person talk about the United States have saved France twice one more time.......this is in reference to both World Wars. For the record, the French are entirely grateful to American aid during the Second World War. When it comes to the First, however, it's a different story.
Although many try to belittle French aid to the Americans during the War of Independence, saying it was just petty revenge against Britain to get them back for losing the Seven Years' War in 1763 is ridiculous. I respond to this stupid logic with the fact that all countries have their own agendas and political goals at stake. It's interesting because, despite the huge importance of French aid (I'm not just talking about the money, troops, supplies, etc., but also the fact that because France officially joined the thirteen united colonies against Britain, this sent a message to other European nations such as Spain and the Low Countries which then joined as well), the American diplomats in Europe were pretty treacherous in their dealings with France. Part of the treaty between the two nations signed in 1778 affirmed that neither would engage in any sort of peace with Britain or her allies without the others knowledge. Yes, France had some goals in the conflict as well, such as reacquiring lost overseas territories. American officials had clandestine meetings with British diplomats, and although the comte de Vergennes, one of Louis XVI's leading ministers during this time, was aware of the fact, it was pretty duplicitous.
This argument that French assistance was based on calculating political goals is also unfair to Louis XVI, who in large part lost control of the kingdom due to the spiraling debt that ensued from his decision to send money, troops, and supplies. This unfortunate monarch often gets written off as stupid, slow, unfit, boorish, etc. In fact he was highly-educated and, despite living in the heart of traditional ideas of monarchy, had read much enlightened literature. He wasn't a tyrant bent on hanging on to vestiges of absolute despotism. Having read much of the current philosophes and encyclopédistes of his day, including Diderot, Hume, and Montesquieu, the young Louis XVI was of the age where one is often fascinated by new, utopian ideas and it shows in the works he stocked in his library and his attention to philoshopical and political developments at home and abroad.
reply
share
nicolo001-675-680396
11 years ago
I think much of the resentment still stems from the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Many surviving Huegonauts eventually made their way to America, and became influential.
reply
share