Hail to France: The Leaders on Ice

[sakiqc]

On my morning newspapers search on google, I found that weird (out of topic) article from Cornell University newspaper. Basically, it's an american praising French Canadians. The guy doesn't know we have nothing to do with France.. not your usual "Remembrance day" article hehe. Still a good read :que:

Hail to France: The Leaders on Ice

The Ultimate Trip

November 11, 2005

Kyle Sheahen

France is in the news this week, but the country is not exactly on what you would call a roll. Ethnic riots grip Paris and are literally spreading like wildfire throughout the country.

It’s been a long time since the French helped us beat George III, or gave us the Statue of Liberty, or provided a tolerant haven for Thomas Jefferson and his slave-girl girlfriend. In fact, today — Nov. 11 — is a grim reminder of World War I and the loss of over a million French lives.

There’s not much we can do to help. The U.S. really hasn’t done anything for France since Patton left Paris in 1944, so a charity package of freedom fries from Washington is unlikely.

But, on behalf of our troubled friends across the pond, let us be thankful for their colonization of Canada in the 17th century. Today, turn off T.O., bypass the BCS and don’t bother counting Shaq’s kids. The most riveting storyline in sports is the revival of French-Canadian hockey.

The French dominance of the National Hockey League is nothing new. Hockey’s all-time aristocracy reads like a fine wine list — Brodeur, Dionne, Lemieux and Roy. The Montreal Canadiens are called “Les Habitants” and have won a Stanley Cup in every decade the NHL has existed — 24 in all.

If you think “Oh, Canada!” in English is a great song, listen to it in French — sung by 20,000 fans in Montreal. It’s as inspiring as “La Marseille” from the movie Casablanca.

Today, the Canadiens once again are hockey royalty. They have the most points in the Eastern Conference. Not far behind are their quasi-French brethren, the Ottawa Senators. The Habs and Sens rule the East like Louis XIV, the king, and they are as cool as Louis XIV, the rock band.

The French have history on their side. Arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of sports, the Canadiens are eager to make their mark on the 21st century with a Cup in 2006. The ghost of Maurice Richard has drifted from the Forum to the Bell Centre — and the “Rocket” is thirsty for blood.

The French give us the most exciting players. Vincent Lecavalier and Martin St. Louis — the duo who brought the Stanley Cup to Tampa Bay in 2004 — are hockey’s most prolific twosome since Wayne Gretzky and Jari Kurri. Then there’s Flyers winger Simon Gagne — who shoots pucks like Eric Gagne throws fastballs.

The French players know how to win. In the 2004 Cup Finals, St. Louis scored the stunning game-winner in double overtime in Game 6 — his third game-winner of the playoffs.

Even in losing, the French are in command. Jean-Sebastien Giguere single-handedly led Anaheim to the 2003 Finals, lost in Game 7, and still won the Conn Smythe Trophy for the playoffs MVP.

The French have panache. Legendary Canadiens coach Jacques Demers has just told us he could neither read nor write — yet he won the Stanley Cup and was named Coach of the Year on two occasions. He won the Cup in 1993 by absurdly — but accurately — accusing Marty McSorley of using an illegal stick for the Kings.

The French have savoir-faire. Sean Avery, the current John Rocker of the NHL, recently said French-Canadian players can’t back up their tough play. Ian Laperriere of Colorado said, “If Avery’s looking for a French guy who will back it up, I’m his guy.” When Los Angeles came to Denver in October, Laperriere scored twice to humiliate Avery.

The French still manage to get the most beautiful women. Stacia Robitaille is the wife of Kings All-Star Luc — the highest scoring left-winger ever. Stacia is also a model, an actress and owner of her own record company. The nickname “Lucky” was never so appropriate.

It’s easy to listen to George Bush and hate the French. It’s easy to boycott crepes and mock berets. And granted, it’s appropriate to beg Gerard Depardieu to never be seen nude on the big screen again. This hockey season, however, is under French control. From pea soup kitchens in Quebec to red wine bistros in Montreal, hope for French hockey is on the rise. As hockey fans, all we can do now is relax and enjoy le feu d’artifice.

LINK to Source >> Cornell University Newspaper

[Edited on 2005-11-11 by sakiqc]

[mrgodo]

What a friggin' meathead.

I thought it was written by a twelve year old for some grade school project, but the byline claims he's an editor.

There's three minutes of my time poorly spent...

[MAK]

i'm french and I still think this is BS.

and it's poorly writen too...it DOES look like a 12year old kid wrote that junk

[ddawwidd]

Originally posted by sakiqc

Hail to France: The Leaders on Ice

The Ultimate Trip

November 11, 2005

Kyle Sheahen

France is in the news this week, but the country is not exactly on what you would call a roll. Ethnic riots grip Paris and are literally spreading like wildfire throughout the country.

To be exact - my teacher of French told our group that she had phoned to her friend in France to talk about those riots. She heard, that we in Poland are more interested in those riots, than the Frenchmen themselves.

[Lister110]

I like where this guy is coming from even if his facts and point are pretty muddled. Remember it takes guts to say anything that puts the French in a good light in the States right now. The only draw back is that someone more a-la-Bush that knows his facts could humiliate this guy pretty easily.

There were a lot more than one million French soldiers that died in WWI. They had one of the highest casualty records of the war. That war was so devestating that it is largely why they sat WWII out.

"La Marseille" I'm guessing is meant to say "La Marseillaise"

And really to say French viewerships equates French teams is a little out there. It could have some substance for the Habs but not for the Sens. The sens have less French Canadian players than most American teams do.

I guess he has to take into account his audience though. If the logic and depth of his article are lacking it might be more on account of his audience not knowing all that much about it.

All I see here are good intentions

[Edited on 2005/11/11 by Lister110]

[mrgodo]

It's no excuse for propagating ignorance. Especially at a univserity level. I don't believe that Cornell University is chock full of people who are not familiar with hockey: Where did Ken Dryden get his degree???

You don't have a problem with the author confusing Canada with France? It's just irritating that someone who should be reasonably educated would go on at length so erroneously. The 'good intentions' are really quite weak. He's not claiming that Canada has good hockey players, France does. Name two French hockey players. Give credit where credit is due!

And not to be harsh, but the French losses of WWI were just over 1.3 million. The Germans lost 1.8 million, but that didn't keep them out of World War II. It didn't keep the French out either: they had the best perceived army in 1940 but were surprisingly destroyed by superior German tactics. It was a very big shock then. The French were occupied and fought back by covert means in their home nation and from their colonies with De Gaulle leading the exiled French Government.

[Rooster]

Originally posted by mrgodo

It's no excuse for propagating ignorance. Especially at a univserity level. I don't believe that Cornell University is chock full of people who are not familiar with hockey: Where did Ken Dryden get his degree???

You don't have a problem with the author confusing Canada with France? It's just irritating that someone who should be reasonably educated would go on at length so erroneously. The 'good intentions' are really quite weak. He's not claiming that Canada has good hockey players, France does. Name two French hockey players. Give credit where credit is due!

And not to be harsh, but the French losses of WWI were just over 1.3 million. The Germans lost 1.8 million, but that didn't keep them out of World War II. It didn't keep the French out either: they had the best perceived army in 1940 but were surprisingly destroyed by superior German tactics. It was a very big shock then. The French were occupied and fought back by covert means in their home nation and from their colonies with De Gaulle leading the exiled French Government.

Amen. An extraordinarily poor article. Can't really take good intentions into much account when they are just based of fluff and fantasy. Going back to WWII, well noted mrgodo, the French were defeated by blitzkrieg tactics and poor defenses along the Belgian border, not for lack of preparations (see Maginot line) or lack of "showing up". Not actually sure why we are debating this, but whatever.

[Lister110]

Originally posted by Rooster

Originally posted by mrgodo

Amen. An extraordinarily poor article. Can't really take good intentions into much account when they are just based of fluff and fantasy. Going back to WWII, well noted mrgodo, the French were defeated by blitzkrieg tactics and poor defenses along the Belgian border, not for lack of preparations (see Maginot line) or lack of "showing up". Not actually sure why we are debating this, but whatever.

I apologize in advance for dragging this out, I just want to explain where I was coming from a bit better.

Okay, 1,359,000 dead 4,200,000 wounded 361,650 missing total 5,920,650 casualties. The missing can be presumed dead at this point so that brings it close to two million and the injuries a person suffered in WWI often brought death or suicide at a later date. Medical science was pretty nasty back then. France's population was around 34 million and Germany's was about 67 million. France's losses affected the country a lot more with their smaller population. There was also a major political division in the French government after WWI and Depression, memories and skepticism from WWI can't be disregarded. The French airforce had almost as many fighter planes as the Germans, but never took off because the of suspected conspiracies in the high command. Some people have argued that France was on the verge of civil war when they were attacked. There was so much apathy about the war and the state of affairs after WWI that the country had a shockingly high political turn over, changing governments in some cases every few months. France had the opportunity to go after Germany in the Spanish civil war and the German occupation of the Rhineland, but couldn't get the support at home or abroad.

Even though the French had the Maginot line, you couldn't say they were prepared for WWII because the political disarray compromised all of their preparations. For the Maginot line to work, they needed Belgium to be on side or there would be a gaping hole. The French government failed to secure this. The phony war was also the result of political indecision, giving the Germans time to defeat Poland and concentrate their forces on France. It also gave Germans the time to develop the Blitzkreig. The French had good fighter planes and tanks but didn't use them appropriately. When you look at it altogether you see the progression, WWI devestating the population leading to a loss of faith in French institutions, political apathy leading to the empowerment of extremists, the division of the population weakening the country's presence in Europe, the negligence leading to complete surprise and defeat in the face of the Blitz. The large disenfranchised French population didn't trust the government and didn't want to go through the destruction of the previous war.

Agreed confusing French and French Canadian is a screw up, but they are still linked by blood, language and cultural ties. For a lot of Americans and ignorant English Canadians, speaking French makes you French. By showing a North American French man (or French Canadian) to show French people in a favorable light that is more recognizable to American interests is a good thing if it removes prejudice. Chances are the writer wasn't thinking about this, all I'm saying is its a possibility.

How much republican anti-French prejudice is there at Cornell? Beats me, but there have been some pretty well educated Americans saying some pretty stupid things about "old Europe" so I wouldn't be surprised.

[Edited on 2005/11/12 by Lister110]

[mrgodo]

Everyone else close your ears...

Why are you contradicting yourself to drag this out?

You say that a lot more than a million french soldiers died in WWI. Then your retort includes wounded, civilian deaths and post war deaths. Do you choose to include natural deaths that occurred during the war? The original statement was over a million french soldiers lost their lives in WWI.

You initially state that France sat out WWII. Sweden sat out WWII. Spain, Portugal, Turkey (for most of it) and Switzerland sat out WWII. France allowed Germany to make the first offensive move.

France declared war on Germany. It seems implied from your statement that Germany was the aggressor versus France. "All" the Germans did was violate Polish sovereignty. (Which I believe was considered a war crime at Nuremburg).

France's population was closer to 40 million. Germany was closer to 70 million.

Obviously with hindsight, the French were not prepared for the second world war. But, they did try to prepare. They built the Maginot line to prevent the Germans from attacking in that direction and it worked. It just didn't save them from defeat. They had a large army. Not well led or motivated, but how were the Germans to know that for sure?

As for the readership at Cornell, you seem to have a very low opinion of Americans and of university educated people. Just because some people do not need to know the difference between Marseilles and La Marseillaise doesn't mean you have to write articles geared for a preschooler.

Fine, you can believe that this is a useful article for making americans feel all warm and fuzzy about France's hockey program.

I just wish I'd never set eyes on it...

[simonus]

Originally posted by Lister110

How much republican anti-French prejudice is there at Cornell? Beats me, but there have been some pretty well educated Americans saying some pretty stupid things about "old Europe" so I wouldn't be surprised.

I can never tell how much of it is joking.... but quite a bit. Now Indiana University has a slightly different political makeup than Cornell (around Indiana we are considered very liberal, but this is Indiana! Check the track record. I guess a slight majority of my profs are liberals, but definitely not the student body), but I've seen a lot of liberals make fun of France as well.

It's kinda funny that you picked up this article that can't tell the difference between France and French Canada (actually, i think he could tell the difference, but just ran out of nice things to say about France). I was waiting for him to talk about all those great Jai Alai players throughout the french world. One should note that this is not a rare mistake south of the border.

I am from Montreal, Quebec. I am anglophone. I speak some version of Montrealais with some level of fluency (lets say 70% when spoken). My ancestors never got anywhere near France and never spoke French. Am I a French Canadian? According to a hell of a lot of people around here, yup! It might solve some of our political problems in Quebec if everybody just used the Indiana system for determining heritage. You from where those people are? That's who you are.

Now for the best part: how do they tease me about it (while I try to explain the difference between a dude from the west end and a french canadian)? Frog! Frenchie! Go surrender!

But Quebecois were at Dieppe!

Whats Dieppe? Anyways, go surrender.

What about Billy Bishop?

That doesn't sound french!

Neither do I.

Oh well, sorry to rant.

[Lister110]

Originally posted by mrgodo

Why are you contradicting yourself to drag this out?

You say that a lot more than a million french soldiers died in WWI. Then your retort includes wounded, civilian deaths and post war deaths. Do you choose to include natural deaths that occurred during the war? The original statement was over a million french soldiers lost their lives in WWI.

You initially state that France sat out WWII. Sweden sat out WWII. Spain, Portugal, Turkey (for most of it) and Switzerland sat out WWII. France allowed Germany to make the first offensive move.

France declared war on Germany. It seems implied from your statement that Germany was the aggressor versus France. "All" the Germans did was violate Polish sovereignty. (Which I believe was considered a war crime at Nuremburg).

France's population was closer to 40 million. Germany was closer to 70 million.

Obviously with hindsight, the French were not prepared for the second world war. But, they did try to prepare. They built the Maginot line to prevent the Germans from attacking in that direction and it worked. It just didn't save them from defeat. They had a large army. Not well led or motivated, but how were the Germans to know that for sure?

As for the readership at Cornell, you seem to have a very low opinion of Americans and of university educated people. Just because some people do not need to know the difference between Marseilles and La Marseillaise doesn't mean you have to write articles geared for a preschooler.

Fine, you can believe that this is a useful article for making americans feel all warm and fuzzy about France's hockey program.

I just wish I'd never set eyes on it...

I'm going to try and keep this respectful even though I wasn't given the same courtesy here.

First off, out of respect, I recognize there are many different definitions of nationality these days. French Canadians being the ancestors of the French is not a lost one. Its been a long process in this country to try and make French Canadians ashamed or alienated from their cultural ties with their mother country. The British naturally had their reasons and the process continues today. This is bullshit because their are still anglophones that take pride in their British roots and I see no reason why French Canadians shouldn't do the same. Maybe some people are fortunate enough to live in parts of the country that are more open minded to France or the French, but I haven't seen this in most of the places I've been to.

I don't want to drag this out, but I will defend my points of view from undeserved condesenscion.

You already have it from a student in the US that university students in at least some schools aren't aware of the differences between French and French Canadians. Its pretty common knowledge that the education system in the states has a pretty ethnocentric focus. I have plenty of respect for the merits and quality of American education, but the global outlook has been a pretty big failing point for the country as a whole.

There can be no doubt Germany was the aggressor against France. Hitler's pre-war plans included invading France to get vengence for WWI. Wikepedia is handy to learn some history, but German aggression definitely did not start in Poland. There was the support they gave to the fascists in Spain, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria and the Chechoslovakian Sedutenland(spelling could be wrong) followed by the annexation of the rest of the country. All of these broke international law established in the League of Nations. Poland was the line in the sand, Hitler could be seen as having declared war on the powers from the Spanish Civil War onwards. And why did no one stop him? Because the memories of WWI were too close. That's how appeasement got started, "give them what they want because we can't afford another war.

As to the war dead, I'll admit I thought it was higher. I don't go around memorizing numbers of WWI. What I do memorize are the important points and the one to walk away with is that the per capita losses devestated France on a scale much higher than Germany's comparable number losses. And the wounded is vital because it factors into the living memory of the war leading up to WWII. It put reminders of the war everywhere in France(the population was around 34 million, France went through population decline between 1870 and 1940). These weren't pretty victims, a stat I remember from uni was that something like 1/4 wounded solders died from their injuries at a later date. And I think it was estimated at only 1/4 that could return to an ordinary life. An actual strategy the Germans used in WWI was called "war of attrition." The point behind this was that if one German died for every Frenchman(preferably more), it would depopulate France and force them to surrender. This policy was abandonned when the Americans joined the war, but in the long run it could be said to have worked as it broke France's spirit for WWII. France should be seen entering WWII as present day Mahammed Ali fighting present day George Forman.

So when I say that France sat world war two out, please don't take it so literally, it means that they weren't united or committed to fighting the war. There was a very large disenfranchised population with a higher percentage of people with direct contact to WWI than Germany or Britain. This division lead to fractal governments with limited authority. In Germany it created the Nazis and in France it created political chaos(with help from the Depression). You can even see it in the art movements of the time if you're so inclined. There were people in France that tried to motivate the country, Leon Blum was a determined leader and was largely responsible for keeping France on the right side and rearming the country. These people couldn't sway the apathy enough to get the country ready.

*The Maginot didn't work! It was bypassed through the Belgium. The Germans sneak attacked the main fortress in Belgium with glider troops and from there cut a road through the black forest into France. The actual line was only tested by the Germans in one trivial place and they broke through it easily. The Maginot line could have been used better if Belgium had been brought on side (a country that took too much of the brunt in WWI and attempted to be neutral) and if the French airforce had been active.

The bottom line is that I'm not making this stuff up and if you don't agree so be it. There are lots books with conflicting views of the war. The best approach I maintain is to give the main arguments each some merit. You can definitely find books showing France's WWII failure as linked to WWI if you want to read more on it. The only part of history that isn't suppose to be subjective are the numbers and even there it can be up for interpretation(look into the revisionist textbooks in Japan).

From all of this the only thing I forgot was the actual war dead, confusing it with casualties and the lasting impression of the war.

The point remains that this article was probably written in an easy read university newspaper to show French people in a more favorable light. The audience isn't going to be all political science and history students. I've seen worse in some Canadian university newspapers. Before you think I'm underestimating American education, take a trip down to Toronto and listen to what students there have to say about the French and French Canadians.

There was never a contradiction, if the article got the war dead right then it makes the writer even better in my books. The main point has always been that the article has good intentions and may be appropriate for its readership(one of the first things they teach you in journalism). Promoting peace in the states is a cause I am sympathetic with and you have to dig a little deeper to see there is a connection to this beyond the what was it, " making Americans feel warm and fuzzy about the French hockey program." hahaha

[Edited on 2005/11/12 by Lister110]

[mrgodo]

I don't think it's wrong to take pride in the accomplishments of a people, but I do think it's wrong and misleading to attribute those accomplisments unduly.

"Promoting peace in the state..." wtf? Am I arguing with Kyle Sheahen? Stop changing the points of contention.

If I wrote an article about how wonderful England is and cited Wayne Gretzky as a prime example, what exactly does that demonstrate? Even if it a attribute the success of the Ukraine to Gretzky, how is that relevant?

If these people who are to be changed by this article do come to find that France is not a hockey super power, don't you think they'll become more jaded? Are the qualities of France so weak that it needs to be propped up with stretches of the imagination?

As for our little war discussion, compare our responses in chronological order and tell me that you're not slightly changing the basis of the discussion somewhat. For example, the Maginot line DID WORK: it forced the main German attack away from the Franco-German border.

They built the Maginot line to prevent the Germans from attacking in that direction and it worked.

I didn't say it won them the war. And oddly enough you counter my statement by saying it didn't work and the reason was that it was bypassed through Belgium (that's what I meant when I said 'prevent the Germans from attacking in that ie. through the area of the Maginot line direction').

I'm sorry if my tone is a little harsh, but that's just me. I'm not intending to be disrespectful, but passionate.

Hey simonus, i've been called an 'english muffin' and i'm neither english nor a muffin. sticks and stones.

[Lister110]

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from. A lot of people I know are fiery in discussing history or hockey. I can be one of them as well depending on the day you catch me on. No doubt you'd be a great buddy to be sitting next to at the Bell Centre.

True, It's pretty sad if the only way the French image can be boosted in the US is through pseudo French people.

As far as the Maginot is concerned, I guess it depends on where you set the objectice for it. It's true that it succeeded in diverging the Germans from a drive on Paris. Where I see as failing is in the objective of keeping the Germans out of France altogether. The option De Gaulle wanted instead was an all tank army, wonder how that would have faired?

Anyway time to get ready for Leafs/Habs :hlogo::can: