• minibyte@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The French deserve some respect. If you want to know what a true strike or protest looks like, look to the French.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Even today, they just don’t give a fuck about rules.

      In Southern France there are speed cameras being set up everywhere, and they’ll catch you for being even a few km’s over. The locals (mostly rural) have responded by either torching them, encasing them in hay bales, painting over them, or chopping them down. The police keep putting them up, alongside cameras to watch the cameras, and the locals keep destroying them overnight.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      The important thing is to burn lots of people’s cars. Probably locals who are also protesting.

      That’s how you really get the attention of the authorities.

      • Pringles@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        In France, but also Belgium and the Netherlands, you have a very malcontent population of 2nd or 3rd generation offspring (mostly male) of migrants who feel left out by the system and take any opportunity to cause chaos. It are these kids who set cars alight, not the protestors.

        Often when there is a truly large protest, they are there to “fight against the system” by getting into fights with the police and burning cars and just causing overall mayhem.

    • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Did you see the yellow jackets marching with their rolling barbecue fitted on the city’s tram line? Magnificent bastards.

  • cmder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    So yeah why does the american/english don’t do more research about origins and call everything french ?

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s because deep frying was not very common in the U.S. Immersion in hot fat was considered a French style of cooking, so they’re French style fried potatoes. I think “fries” instead of “frieds” is dialect that caught on nationally in the U.S. in the 70s.

  • jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah, it never occurred to anyone ever to stick their tongues in each others mouths until it was documented in ancient India.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 month ago

      Anon didn’t say that it started in ancient India, just that the fact that it happened in ancient India proves that it didn’t start in France

    • shawn1122@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      We generally attribute discoveries to whoever documented it first. It’s almost laughable to attribute it to the French based on a kissing style that was widespread there in 1923. Surely people were doing it before then. Yet, the Americans and British found it so unique they referred to it as French kissing.

      Perhaps it was common before ancient India, but then the question is, why didn’t the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, and Greek document on it then?

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        We barely document how we wipe our asses or shower because it’s such a mundane, day to day thing.

        Writing was limited, so I hypothesize that people would focus on important things like tax collections, kingly births or even that cunt Ea-Nasir. Less so on kissing or things they would find mundane.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Arabic numerals came to Europe from India via Arabia. The Sine function does too, but it’s name is garbled and doesn’t mean anything.

        Venetian blinds came from Persia via Venice.

        Spanish Flu was everywhere, but everyone at the time was lying about it due to being at war, except for Spain.

        Many First Nations peoples are known by what other peoples called them (often pejorative names) rather than their name for themselves.

        Words usually aren’t authoritative declarations of truth, but rather snapshots of what was a useful distinction to someone somewhere a some time. Did the French think their style of kissing was a unique cultural phenomenon? Will Skibidi be known about in 500 years? No one documents graffiti, was it “discovered” by Pompeii?

        We live in a truely unique age, where nearly any question can have a relavent answer of some kind in moments. We can see people streaming everyday things from around the globe, or find the best research about what we know about ancient people’s daily lives. Is any of this worth carving into a monument though? How many copies of an archeological journal are going to survive the ages vs copies of Game of Thrones? I’d say there are countless things about our lives we think are special to today that even prehistoric people did, it just isn’t notable enought to build monuments to or copy manuscripts of.

      • x00z@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s the thing. France and Belgium call french fries “frites” and “frieten”, which just translates to “fries”. It’s other cultures that gave them (wrong) names because of how they got to know them.

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which gives rise to the true founding father of Germany. Napoleon.

      Without his restructuring of the HRE for management it would be even harder to unify later.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Questionable: the 2023 movie Napoleon is entirely British and American actors. It is historically accurate. 🤔

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Britain is the land mass that includes England, Wales, and Scotland.

    William the Conquerer was the first Norman king of England and never had power over Wales and he was mostly successful in gaining homage from King Malcolm III, but never king over the lands.

    Edward I about two hundred years later almost pulls it off, but doesn’t quite get a firm grip on Scotland. James I in the early 17th century holds the crown for each of the lands. In 1707 they formalize the relationship with a treaty.

    So… No the French did not found Britain.

    • Im_old@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Also Normans were descendants of viking settlers. So French didn’t technically fund England either (yes, I’m being pedantic for the sake of the joke).

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      You could, however, accurately say that a French family founded the modern British monarchy. That much is still true. The UK royal family can still trace its lineage directly to William the Conqueror.

      • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s not just the royal family, other descendants of the french conquerors are also on average wealthier than the descendants of those that had been conquered.

        One pretty striking statistic: “Furthermore, Norman descendants also enjoy other privileges, including attendance at the best universities. In a recent study that examined the enrollment at Cambridge and Oxford over the last thousand years, it was revealed that at certain times, Norman names were 800% more common at Oxford than in the general population, and more recently, were at least twice as likely to found in that institution’s enrollment.”

        https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/last-1000-years-families-owned-england/

      • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Normans were Vikings - the then Frankish King, Charles, gave them land in north France if they agreed to shut the fuck up and stop murdering everyone in sight. They become known as ‘Northmen’ which contracted to ‘Norsemen’ which contracted to ‘Norman’.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Anglos, Saxons, and Jutes were all tribes from what we’d call Germany. The Romans paved the first roads of London, and taught the Pagans about Jesus. And Rome was cosmopolitan, so it was a lot more than Italians in that army. England has also suffered under Danish/Scandinavian conquests small and large. The King Cnut was not a misspelling. His nephew, William is a Scandinavian settled in France.

      So… as far as “blood and soil” goes, Britain, and her people, were always more of a group project.

    • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 month ago

      Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon? The son of an Irish immigrant? He’s not the kind of guy who’d let facts get in the way of an opinion so we’re probably pretty solid saying that in front of him. If he did run his mouth, then I got your back, blud.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      A full revolution takes you back to where you started.

      Also, cinema was invented by the French. Kind of cool IMO.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Also, cinema was invented by the French. Kind of cool IMO.

        And then reinvented (with the Nouvelle Vague that went against “the Hollywood way” and largely contributed to revitalizing the entire industry)

  • To save anyone else the wiki trip

    “Some authors consider the recipe for Aliter Dulcia (translated as ‘Another sweet dish’) included in the Apicius, a 1st-century CE Ancient Roman cuisine cookbook, “not very different” from modern French toast, although it does not involve eggs.[10][11]

    In Le Viandier, culinary cookbook written around 1300, the French chef Guillaume Taillevent presented a recipe for tostées dorées[12] involving eggs and sugar.[13]”

  • modeler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Well, technically the French did not found Britain - they were Normans.

    Who were the Normans? They were Scandinavian vikings who had been raiding France for decades. Eventually the French king decided to offer them lands (now called Normandy) in France if they promised to stop raiding and instead protect the French coast.

    • HlodwigFenrirson@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Français
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Normans were in France since at least 3 generation before the britain invasion. So they were clearly french culturally and they were fully merged with the locals genettically. Also the invading army had troops from nearby french region like Brittany or Anjou.

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Britain yet again something they just tacked onto near the end being Italian,German and Scandinavian before hand.