| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| fab |
I agree that Paris in not in southern Europe, but it canno't be described as being situated in northern Europe either. I always thought northern France as being an geographically beetween northern and southern Europe, but in none of them really. To me northern Europe is that :  [/quote]
|
||||||||||
| fab |
Elaine thanks for the answer,
Are your pictures in Beverly hills ?
In most places of southern France, it is obligatory to build with this kind of roofs. Even Mc Donald's had to do it ! |
||||||||||
| Elaine |
None of those homes are in Beverly Hills. The first home (the modest one) is in Echo Park, where I live, and the others are in Los Feliz, which is just a hop skip and jump away from my 'hood. BH homes are on a much grander scale. 
EDIT: Damn geocities!! 
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I'm not sure that I immediately include Ukraine and Moldova when I think of 'Northern Europe' as such. |
||||||||||
| fab |
Benjamin, For ukraine and Moldava I agree with you. I just put the map I found. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
That map is more of a cultural map than a geographical one. For instance, much of southern Germany is actually lower than Paris and northern France, but these regions are not included in northern Europe. Geographically, Paris is a northern European city. | ||||||||||
| fab |
I agree that this map take in some extend account of the cultural aspects to categorize some places (without cutting the countries in two) But I'm sorry, if you look at a map with attention, Paris can hardly be considered to be in northern Europe. Paris is situated a a latitude of 48.5°N The center of gravity of the European Union is situated in Germany, at about 50°N, about the level of Brussels or Praha. The places situated south of this lattitudes are usually not considered to be geographically north European. Isn't it difficult to consider that Paris would be geographically a northern European city while situated below the center of gravity ?
souther Germany, situated below 50° is almost never considered as north European in a pure geographical way. which is not, being situated below the gravity center of Europe. That the reason why southern Germany is usually considered as geographically in central Europe and not northern Europe. I you look the map of Germany, contrary of what you say, only a little part of southern Germany is situated below 48.5° of latitude (around 40% of south Germany, so about a maximum of 20% of Germany as a whole is situated below Paris's latitude. You see Paris in the north ? I see it in the middle. 
|
||||||||||
| Porthos |
That last map seems to make more sense from a geographical standpoint, wouldn't you agree? It is especially hard to define regions this way. I will give you an example. Southern France is a mediterranean region, right on the mediterranean, with classic mediterranean weather and everything. Yet, technically, it is far north of southern Spain or southern Italy, because both are peninsulas. It's just that it doesn't jut out as far into the sea as the Iberian and Italian peninsulas do. | ||||||||||
| fab |
Of course I agree, I made it myself to explain my point of view. It is not basically a huge difference from the other, excepted that the regions of predominatly northern countries that canno't geographically counted as northern European are conisdered apart. It just clearly shows that paris is not situated in northern Europe nor southern but really in the middle (I would like to say "center", but "central Europe" means to be central in a north/south scheme but also in a in beetween east and west. it carries cultural and climatic conotations that northern France doesn't share, so let's say "middle" to avoid any confusion).
Of course that France doesn't go as much far in the south than Spain or Italy, And then ? A lot of inverse exemples can exist. Look at Denmark, it is not in the scandinavian peninsula itself, its most northern point (57°N) is much lower than Norwiegian (71°N) or Swedish (69°N) ones (lower than UK's northermost point). Copenhagen (55°N), its capital, is much more southern than Stokholm or Oslo (60°N). Is Copenhagen a southern European city because of that ? you canno't claim that everything which is not in the extreme south of Europe is in northern Europe. If so, Milano, the biggest Italian city, would be considered a northern European place... This is a map of the latitudes of the main European capitals : 
And for the mediterranean ambiance and climate, you don't have them in all central and northern Spain (look at my pictures I posted of northern Spain and of Madrid region...does it "look" like very much "mediterranean" ?) [/img] |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
No admittedly, much of Spain does not have that mediterranean look or ambiance. Much of Spain is arid steppe, and other regions have sort of a foggy, misty, damp, green, Celtic ambiance. But southern and eastern Spain definitely have that classic mediterranean ambiance, as does southern France and most of Italy. You can also tell by the food. Southern French food is classic "mediterranean", while the north is a bit different, as is the cuisine of much of interior Spain or northern Italy. | ||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
i like that map :
And this one too : 
|
||||||||||
| Porthos |
Greg,
Didn't you say that one of your parents was English? Have you been to Britain very much? I'm willing to bet that your father was English, and if so, I'll tell you why. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
It was me who suggested it. I'm not aware of Greg having said anything regarding the origin of his parents, although I could be wrong. I have reasons for thinking that Greg may have one British parent; not sure if they'd be the same as yours though. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
He has an excellent command of the English language. Of course, this could be achieved by years of practice, possibly decades of practice, but I don't know how old he is. His profieciency would suggest that one of his parents might be Anglophones. He also seems to carry an animosity toward Britain and America, and Anglophones in general. Usually, a child born from two people of different cultures will be more likely to be influenced by his mother, who is usually the primary care taker, the one who suckles the child, and feeds him, etc. He is very French, for not only did he grow up in France, but more likely, if he has an English parent, it is his mother who is French native, and not the other way around. But, this of course, is pure speculation. 
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Lol, yes. It's also true that the most emphatically 'British' people I know (most of us are not very patriotic, in all honesty) are people who might have had to think harder about their own identity than is normally necessary — people whose parents/grandparents were immigrants, or have one non-British parent etc. For example, my French teacher is French, but he's married to a British woman (who, incidentally, is a German teacher). I know their son to some extent — and he's the most emphatically pro-British and anti-French person you'll come across. (That said, my French teacher isn't exactly pro-French either — he spends a lot of time talking about how racist France is).
As we're speculating Greg, who it must be said often presents himself as a somewhat mysterious figure... maybe he himself used to be British! (What it means to be 'French' is similar to what it means to be 'American', but rather different from what it means to be, say, 'German').
Essentially, I do feel that having a somewhat unorthodox background causes you to question certain things, and may result in you taking rather more firm stances on certain issues. For example, I take a very critical view of the history of the British Empire, and almost feel a certain 'guilt' over it. Is it just an accident that my mum was born an Anglo-African? |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Comme on dit en français, mieux vaut tourner sa langue sept fois dans sa bouche avant de dire des bêtises...
I'm sad o disappoint you since none of my ascendants either is or speaks English. Didn't it occur to you that I could just be *liking* the English *language* ? (a foreign language to me, really) Porthos : ta capacité à échaffauder des théories psychanalytiques est admirable. Mais, outre que l'objet de ta curiosité est également un sujet qui n'a pas sollicité ton précieux concours, tu devrais, je pense, réinvestir cette énergie dépensée en vain sur une thématique liée au sujet du salon — à défaut de linguistique (il n'est pas interdit de rêver...). |
||||||||||
| fab |
The same way we have an "history" section, Maybe it could be a ggod idea to have a "geography" catagory, where we could put maps and discuss of it.
I found this very complete map about the european languages (and dialectic variants and minority languages) on their respective territory : 
I also would find interesting to have a architecture/urbanism section, to exchange urban views of our diffferent cities. |
||||||||||
| KSa |
Your mum was born an Anglo-African? Doeas it mean you have African ancestors? |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
No, I think he just means that his mother was an English immigrant/settler in Africa. But if he did have black-African ancestors in his recent ancestry, you sure can't tell by looking at him! | ||||||||||
| Porthos |
Merci Greg. Je pas commentaire des autres partes.
|
||||||||||
| Uriel |
I still always think of Paris as being in Northern Europe. People's mental maps seem to differ quite a bit from country to country, I've noticed. | ||||||||||
| Sander |
Me too, to me Paris is definately in the North of France: 
not the south: 
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Porthos essentially has it right here. What I mean is that my mum is a white woman of predominantly British (with some German) descent who was born in Africa. She was actually born in Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, which was still a British colony at the time. I'd be very surprised if I had any non-European ancestors in the past thousand years.
I don't like this map, for three reasons: 1. It makes a significant distinction between the different German and Dutch dialects, yet it treats English (including Scots) as though it is essentially homogenous. This is not accurate, as many of these 'dialects' are not particularly mutually intelligible (compare 'monolingual' speakers of Received Pronunciation and rural Northumbrian, for example, not to mention Scots). 2. Sometimes, such as in the cases of Scotland, Wales and France, they've attempted to show the historical languages. But in other cases, such as in Ireland, they've attempted to reflect the current situation. I'd prefer that they be more consistent. 3. The language of the Shetland and Orkney Isles (the islands to the North-east of Scotland) is not and has never been Celtic — at least not in the past 1000 years. Before about 300 years ago, they spoke a North Germanic language called Norn and they still have a 'Norse' identity. This has since changed to a form of Scots (some would argue English), although much influence from Norn remains (I've heard recordings of Shetlandic and I cannot really understand it). |
||||||||||
| fab |
Sander,
"Me too, to me Paris is definately in the North of France" Yes, I completly agree, Paris is in the north of France, of course, but not in the north Of Europe. Your wheat field landscape from the Paris region is not really a north European landcape. It is also very spread in central Spain (also wheat in the past, in Europe, was of mediterranean origin) 
Everything which is not looking like a summertime mediterranean landscape is not in northern Europe ! Southern Europe can also look like this : Central Spain landscapes 
http://www.pbase.com/escobero/image/52810664 .JPG)
And Italy : 
 [/quote]
|
||||||||||
| Sander |
Are we talking culturally again? Because in that case I think Paris can't be placed. Paris can be compared to the whore of Europe, she's had a thing with nearly every culture of the world, creating a kind of cultural melting pot. As for geography, strictly speaking paris is located in the Southern half of Europe, but so is Germany the Benelux and Southern England. |
||||||||||
| fab |
That's interesting, is it the way people usually see Paris in the USA ? Or is it just that "northern European" means just "not from regions of mediterranean climate" ? What from your point of view makes Paris a north European city ? I don't really understand. Are central European cities such as Vienna, Praha, Budapest or Munchen considered as north European cities from an American point of view ? |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
Yes, to both. From Finland to Switzerland, it's all just "Northern Europe". We're not from there and not as familiar with Europe, so we don't make all the fine distinctions that you probably do.
Location and climate. It's still up there, you know. Look at me -- I live at the same latitude as the Sahara. You're way north, from my point of view.
Vienna and Munchen (or Munich) are, but Praha (Prague) and Budapest are considered Eastern European -- once we're in Eastern Europe, we don't divide it up into north and south. Except for Greece -- Greece dosn't really belong in "our" Eastern Europe. It's Mediterranean. |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
I guess I should add that for me, there's Eastern Europe and Western Europe, and the Eastern half is sort of mysterious and hazy to me, but the western half is further subdivided into Northern and Southern (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece. And I guess the part of France that borders the Mediterranean, too.) But in my visits to Europe, all of England, Germany, the Low Countries, and the part of France I saw (the northern part, including Paris) struck me as very similar -- a continuum. I didn't notice much difference between them. | ||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
If you look at a map of France, you'll see that Paris is clearly to the east of Northwestern France and to the west of Northeastern France. Now if you cut France in two following the imaginary La Rochelle—Geneva line, Paris is in the southern part of the northern half of Northern France...  So Paris isn't exactly the centre of Northern France.
Perhaps towns at the souhteast of Paris, like Melun or Montargis, could be considered the centre of *Northern* France. 
On the other hand, France is far from being at the centre of Europe : it's clearly in the West. Southern Italy and Greece would be more central though both are located in the South of Europe. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I have to say that I basically agree with this. I do not see a clear line between the Channel, Flanders and Wallonia, along the border between France and Germany, and cutting through Switzerland, dividing Western Europe fundamentally into 'Latin' and 'Germanic' regions as some people seem to, even if I do accept that Birmingham and Frankfurt are more similar to each-other than either are to Marseilles.
In England, we don't really worry too much about whether cities in Western Europe are 'Northern European' or 'Southern European', especially for the big and famous ones. Paris is just Paris; it is a world city which is the capital of France and is not very far away from London (about three hours by train). No further classification is necessary. Likewise, I'm not sure if many people who live in London really have a conscious mentality of living in a 'Northern European' city as such. They just live in London, which they (hopefully) know is located in Southeast England, not very far away from Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. But then, a lot of people find it difficult to visualise maps and things; my mum has been all over Europe (and elsewhere), but she would not be able to tell you exactly where, say, Austria is or list the countries next to it, even though she has been there several times. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
See, Uriel personifies the American perspective on this issue. In the U.S., for those who are at least half way familiar with geography and foreign nations, Europe is divided in this way. Eastern Europe - (excluding Greece, which is included with "mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy) This region is seen as being very alien in our eyes, with historically, an orthodox religion, or more recently, a communist political system, both cases, alienated from the west. We see them as all being pretty much the same, Slavs who speak a weird language, and write with a weird alphabet. And then there's Western Europe, which we see as being more familiar. Western Europe is considered to end at Germany. Western Europe is then divided into sections, like north and south. An idea of "Central Europe" does exist in the minds of the more enlightened, but mostly, Central Europe is just grouped in with the north, so that Germanic speaking countries like Austria, Switzerland, and southern Germany are all usually grouped in with northern Europe. Scandanavia is seen as being a little different, with some sort of nostalgia about Vikings and other stereotypes. Germany and Holland are seen as being very similiar, as are Holland and Belgium. Southern Europe usually includes the mediterranean countries, with a lot of Catholic, swarthy people, in Spain, Portugual, and Italy (Greece is sometimes grouped in with these mediterranean countries, but we normally consider it to be an eastern country, with a differenty type of a language and religion, etc, almost like the eastern mediterranean). This brings us to France. France is usually seen through the prisms of Paris, which to us, is a northern European city. Quite honestly, most people do not group France in with the southern countries like Spain, Portugual, and Italy. Most French people, or French-Americans are not seen as being "ethnic", the same way Spaniards or Italians are. Then, we also see the French as being more reserved than Spaniards or Italians. Historically, Anglo-America sort of looked down on the mediterranean countries, who were seen as poor, and underdeveloped. We had a lot of swarthy, Catholic immigrants coming to our shores from mediterranean Europe, who were very energetic and passionate, and often uneducated. They spoke a language full of vowel sounds at the end of almost every word. But, we see the French differently. Even in our history and Social studies textbooks in school, France is referred to as a northern European country. We also tend to associate France with a northern European country because France, along with the British and Dutch, spent most of their energies on colonial engagements in North America, while the "Latin" imperial powers of Spain and Portugual focused and founded colonies in the hot, tropical, deeply Catholic regions of Latin America. The average American does not associate France with southern Europe, perhaps with the exception of places like Cannes or Nice. From my disccussions with Frenchies like Greg and Fab, I have come to see things the way the French themselves do, and now I see France as being a southern European country. While talking with a lot of Americans, it is hard to convince them that this is the case. But when I think of Paris, and its climate and location, I still think of it as a northern European city. To me, it's like the Latin capital of northern Europe. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Interesting that you mentioned religion, because although Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia are largely Eastern Orthodox, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Lithuania are all traditionally Roman Catholic, Latvia and Estonia are traditionally Evangelical Lutheran, Albania is traditionally Muslim and Bosnia-Herzegovina has a roughly even split between Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy. This issue also presents some surprising differences between countries which we might often assume to be very similar. For example, Poland is arguably the most religious country in Europe, whilst Czechia is arguably the least. |
||||||||||
| fab |
Hummm... it beguins to be complicated !!
But it is quite true, I don't know, maybe something like 90% of the french territory may be situated south of Paris. I personally live in the south part of Paris (14eme arrondissement ! ), we are very different from northern Parisians ... or left bank.
southern Germany, Belgium maybe, and why not the extreme south of England are not really geographically part of northern Europe. What is sure is that they are part of countries who, as a whole, are mainly situated in the northern half of Europe.
Yes, but I don't think it is really a characterisit c of Paris only. Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, London, Milano, Amsterdam, etc... also... metropolis "melting pots". |
||||||||||
| fab |
Hello Uriel, That point of view is interesting, but I'm asking myself. But do you consider also Milan, the Italian biggest city, to be a northern European city ? it is located 40km to switzerland (which seems to be seen as a north European country for American eyes), is much closer to Munich (about the Paris/Brussels distance) than to Naples (not even speaking about Madrid), and its winters are much colder than Paris's ones... ? Being living at the sahara level you might see all southern Europe capitals as cool and very "northern" cities ? After all the Spanish capital is at same the latitude than New York... and Milano is about the level of Montreal, Canada. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Even though you weren't asking me, I'll say that I consider Milan to be a large city in Northern Italy. No further geographical clarification is necessary as far as I'm concerned. I already know where it is. |
||||||||||
| Sander |
Not in the way Paris has it. |
||||||||||
| fab |
Yes, here also, most people will group southern Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland in northern Europe for linguistic and cultural reasons. But when thinking in pure geographical point of view those reagions can hardly being considered as northern European (especially Austria and Switzerland). I think the mountainous stereotype, which associate it with snow-covered images make the association easyer with northern Europe in some minds. But it is to forget that the main mountainous ranges of Europe are tipically situated in the southern half (Spain being the second most mountainous country of Europe after switzerland).
In what does consist the way Paris has it ? |
||||||||||
| fab |
In the USA, what does really it means to be seen "ethnic" ?? who is not considered "ethnic" ? |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
"Ethnic" in this sense might be a little difficult for a non-native English speaker to grasp. It sort of denotes a sense of being "exotic" or "foreign" or different from the standard or norm. Northern Europeans all pretty much look the same, and they all easily blended into Anglo-American society. Most white Americans are Northern-European Americans, and there is very little, to no cultural differences between them, and nobody really categorizes them into further sub groups, because they all just look the same. Among whites however, there is a smaller southern-European minority, many of whom are descended from immigrants who set sail from poor regions like southern Italy or Portugal. They are often swarthy, with dark hair and dark eyes, often curly dark hair, etc., they have a vowel at the end of their name, and they retain some cultural differences, so that they are seen as being "different", or not fully accepted as "white" in many cases. And many of them settled in neighborhoods almost exclusively populated by their own kind, giving rise to Italian neighborhoods in cities like New York or Boston. Most Italian-Americans today, even if they're not the swarthy kind, still strongly identify as a distinct ethnic group, and they are usually very proud of their ancestry and their sub-culture. They don't usually speak Italian, but they'll still use Italian slang, and they're Catholic, and they eat Italian food at home, etc, all of which distinguishes them from mainstream, Anglo-American society, which is comprised of people of northern European descent. |
||||||||||
| fab |
I think it is quite confusing. I remember you used a few times ago the word "ethnic french" to speak about the population which was supposed to be "mainstream". If I understand well, in the case of the USA, it is the inverse, the ethnic-Americans are the ones who seem appart from the "mainstream". |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
No, there's a two fold meaning to the word "ethnic". There is no "American" ethnicity, since we are a relatively new republic founded as an immigrant colony. But, in American eyes, somebody can be French because of his nationality, and because he is a naturalized French citizen, but the person is not "ethnically French" unless they are of the traditional, age old, French ethnicity, which is itself a composite of Celtic, mediterranean, and Germanic peoples. Basically, people with French surnames would be "ethnically" French. But in the U.S., we also use the word "ethnic" for ethnic or cultural groups which are minorities, or not the standard norm, which is basically an Anglo mainstream comprised of people of northern European descent. You will often hear people ask if they would like to go out to eat "ethnic food", as in something other than "normal American food", like meat and potatoes. So, Italian, Mexican, and Thai and Japanese food, would all be "ethnic food". It just means foreign or exotic, or different, or alien, or unique. | ||||||||||
| fab |
Yes, but what I basically don't understand in what sense french culture (or in this case food) can seem not exotic for American eyes (or tongues in this case !)
I guess that eating crusty bread, 400 different kinds of cheeses (some of them very unusual ones for an American), all kinds of wines, exotic french sauces, saussissons, etc... not even speaking of "abats", snails or frogs... how could it be considered as similar to the "mainstream" American culture ? |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I don't know how it is in the United States, but in England, French food is not considered 'exotic' as such. Instead, French food is considered to be high-class or up-market food. This is in contrast to Spanish food, which is considered much more 'exotic' here. |
||||||||||
| fab |
"exotic" means "different". Actually, I know there are many french restaurants in the UK, but compared to the "traditional English" (even if I know you don't like it and eat it and prefer Pakistani food) food you can hardly say that french food is similar... To me English (an "american food" too) is quite exotic. The breakfast tradtions in France compared to the english ones are completly exotic, while very similar to Spain's. What do you find so much more exotic in Spanish food than in French food ? I'm curious... As for the high-class thing... That is funny, it is always the thing that comes in these forums (here or antimoon), that everything french would be "high-class". This is absolutly not the case here. Ouside of a very few "grand restaurants", the food is traditionally made of simple dishes with market products (it remind me a discussion we had on antimoon). |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Not exactly.
Whether or not I actually like 'traditional English food', English folk songs, English Country Dancing, or any of these other silly little 'English' things is irrelevant, because I won't admit it if I do.
What sort of 'breakfast traditions' are we talking about? The reality is that my French (and German) friends eat the same sort of breakfasts as me and most people in England — cereal with bread, jam, coffee, orange juice... |
||||||||||
| Deborah |
I think it's the same in the US. The thing is, most French restaurants here do serve haute cuisine, and when I was growing up, I just assumed it was typical French fare. Of course, when I went to France, I learned the truth. (But I found French restaurant cooking to be pretty damned good, even in the really inexpensive, down-home places.) These days, I don't think of French cooking as being exotic, just too expensive for me. |
||||||||||
| fab |
Is really pizza or pasta considered "exotic" in the US more than escagots à la bourguigonne ? I doubt. Italian or Spanish wines would be considered exotic, and not Bordeaux ? Strange...
Benjamin, For Breakfast, I know that teenagers in all the world tend to eat cereals; or jam on toast. It doesn't change the fact that the traditional english breakfast is very different from the tipical french or Spanish one. You may say that today everybody is having a "french-style" breackfast in UK, Actually that was not the case 13 years ago when I went in various English families (4 times). The average breakfast I had was this : 
To me the english breakfast I had in UK, but also in Canada and the US is for me very exotic and unusual. the breakfast was the same kinds, with sausages and "english toasts". I eat the same in Germany. If you go in international hotels you'll have the "Anglo-saxon" (excuse me for the word, but it is basically the same in most english-speaking countries. While the french, Spanish or Italian breackfast would look like this breackfast is traditional light, limited to a expresso coffea, a croissant or tartine with or not jam, or pain au chocolat : Italian breakfast : 
French Breakfast 
|
||||||||||
| Porthos |
That's interesting. North American (Canadian, U.S.) breakfast, at least the "traditional" one is heavy, and full of meat. Almost everybody these days, especially in fast pace America, just eats cereal and milk in the morning. During the weekdays, I have coffee with pandulce if I have time, and I have cereal with milk and a variety of fresh fruit.
The traditional American breakfast, which some people still have on the weekend, would be something like pancakes, or toast, sausage or bacon, potatoes, eggs, orange juice, or milk. In my family, we usually eat Mexican food for breakfast. We usually have something like machaca, which in northern Mexican cuisine is scrambled eggs, chili peppers, carmelized onions, and shredded beef, with tortillas and salsa. Or my personal favorite is Chorizo, which is a spicy sausage. We have Chorizo con papas, or Chorizo con huevos. On Saturday, I usually have chorizo mixed with fried potatoes, with fried eggs on the side, and tortillas, with a glass of orange juice. This is the traditional weekend breakfast for Mexicans, while we usually have pandulce con cafe as they do in Latin European countries as Fab mentioned. I don't really like a heavy breakfast in the morning. I feel more revitalized and energized if I have something light and moist, like cereal and berries with milk. Mexican-Americans tend to have large portions the way most North American cultures do as well, unlike the puny servings in France, Spain, and Italy. Fab, Whether it is true or not, it seems as if most Americans (myself included until relatively recently) think of France and the French as being Central European or Northern European people. We don't group France with the mediterranean countries as much as you might imagine. Even from a racial point of view, the French were seen as being equals to the Anglo-Saxon peoples, while the Italians, Portuguese, and Spaniards were seen as inferior, swarthy, trashy people from poor countries. The founding fathers and people like Benjamin Franklin even said that they wished to attract immigration to America from northern European peoples, including the French, but they disdained the swarthy Catholic southern Europeans like Italians and Portuguese, who were relegated to the ghettos. So, although less pronounced than in past generations, there is this deeply ingrained mentality that French and all things French are sophisticated and romantic, but Italian and Spanish are petty languages, and for peasantry, or loud people, uncouth people. You will hear Americans talking about France as a northern European country all of the time, so much so, that that is what I thought all of this time, until about a year ago. Even Mexican-Americans will seem to get along with, and have a lot in common with Italian immigrants, or Spaniards or Portuguese people, but if you were to tell them that the French were of a similar culture, or cultural cousins, they would wrinkle their nose, and be like "ugghh, the French?". Just like most Americans don't really feel a connection with England, and we see ourselves as being totally different. Some educated Americans might know that we're an Anglo-Saxon country, but I doubt anyone considers America to be a "Germanic" country, just because we are Anglophones, which is a branch of the Germanic family. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
13 years ago. That is not now. The only time when people really eat that sort of cooked breakfast today is in hotels. Maybe a minority of older people might have it, but even then it's probably only on Sunday. Have you considered the possibility that the English families might have been having the 'Full English Breakfast' just because you were there? I bet they were. I think that it's good that we've largely abandoned the 'traditional English' breakfast now. It is extremely unhealthy. And look how uncivilised it looks compared to the French and Italian ones. |
||||||||||
| fab |
So Benjamin, if I believe you now, in 13years the UK has tranformed itself in a French country... Next time I'll go there using English will be completly unusefull ! it's a good news, since my english pronounciation is really horrible and my vocabulary quite poor !
|
||||||||||
| Porthos |
How is one more "civilized" than the other? |
||||||||||
| fab |
Josh, I think our friend Benjamin has a sort of unjustified complex... He seem think that everything tipically "british" is "uncivilized"... I'am like you, I don't understand what could be less civilized in the English breakfast ?! Actually the french breackfast is not even a meal, and we often tend to just have a strong coffea with a simple croissant (I don't see what would be so "civilized" in a simple croissant!) Actually, when I was in exchange in Canada, I took the local custum of the canadian breckfast (derived from the english one), with eggs, bacon, beans... and the Canadian touch : true maple syrup ! Mmmm... |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Seriously, I don't know anyone here who has a cooked breakfast on a regular basis anymore. If a lot of us were, there'd be health warnings against it all the time (like the egg scare in the early 1990s). I'm not talking about hotels or what people might do when they have a French exchange visitor or at Christmas; I'm talking about what ordinary people do in their own homes most of the time — and fortunately, that does not include bacon, sausages, fried eggs, fried eggs, fried tomatoes or any other grossly unhealthy stuff every morning anymore. That's the great thing about today. Up until fairly recently, most of us (Western Europeans) only really knew about the area in which we lived. These days, easy opportunities for travel, widespread media and immigration means that we are much more aware of places further away from our home. That's why in England, superior traditions from elsewhere are replacing the inferior English ones, especially as far as food and drink is concerned, but for other things as well. Because we've seen and heard about good things from elsewhere, and have thus wanted to adopt them.
You could probably come here and speak Polish most of the time if you wanted.
You actually have a reasonably good vocabulary in English. The main problem with your English is your grammar. Anyway, I can't believe that your pronunciation is really that bad. As you say, you went to stay in England to practice your English four times when you were younger, and you probably learnt English for a long time at school as well, so I'd think that you'd be able to speak it quite well. I'd never learnt German before I went to Germany for a two-week course this year, but by the end of it, people were talking to me as though I were German (I didn't completely understand everything they said, but I got most of it, and I could respond fairly confidently — actually, I enjoy every moment of speaking German). It can't be that much easier for me to learn German than it is for you to learn English, can it? |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
I think Benjamin, as many British people do, seems to carry around this British inferiority complex. They seem to feel like their culture is boring and bland, and nothing to be proud of, and thus wish to emulate the more "refined" and "sophisticated", and "chic" culture of France. American culture has its roots in Britain, but is still far removed from the culture of England. So, perhaps the heavy traditional breakfast of England, full of beast flesh (animal meat) and fattening carbs and eggs seems to be barbarically gluttonous to him, while the dainty, small portions of the French breakfast seems more "civilized". But, the only thing that I can think of that is more civilized than another is dining decorum, the fashion in which people take their meals. If their slurping at the table, and burping, and yelling, and eating with their fingers, then you can say that is uncivilized by Western standards. But the food itself cannot be "civilized" or "uncivilized".
Also, over here even, wine is seen as more sophisticated, while beer is seen as something mundane, or a cheaper, more common alternative to the more refined beverage known as wine. Perhaps, this same thought process is applied to food in England. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
By "over here", I meant in the U.S. I'm actually in Mexico right now, so things are a little bit different. Mexico, although a Hispanic country, is more of a beer culture, and not a wine culture, as Spain or Argentina might be. Mexico has some great beer. | ||||||||||
| fab |
[quote]But, the only thing that I can think of that is more civilized than another is dining decorum, the fashion in which people take their meals
... outside of chic cafés the decorum is not really extraordinary "civilized" in France !!  it is more this ambiance :
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Lol yes, that's probably true. I might also add that this is a significant motivation behind my learning of other languages.
Yes; and also the more exciting and vibrant culture of the United States, of course.
Of course. To me, the first picture is of a messy plate of fat and grease, and seems, um, working class. (I really shouldn't have made that class comment, but it's probably best that I'm honest about what I associate it with). The other pictures look much posher and more sophisticated to me. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
So a yogurt parfait is more civilized than bacon and eggs? You mention health concerns. But, the general consenus among health experts and nutritionists is that we should have our biggest meal in the morning, to equip us with the protein and carbohydrates which we will need, and burn, throughout the day. Our smallest meal should actually be at dinner, since we burn relatively few calories sitting on the couch or sleeping at night, compared to our activity during the day. There are healthier alternatives as well when it comes to frying your food. For instance, at my house, we always use olive oil instead of butter. The Latin breakfeast is really not healthy. It just provides you with caffeine and a sugary starch, which will give you a quick energy boost, but your energy levels will then plummet afterwards. Also, the sugars, if not burned, are immediately converted to fat in your body, compared to the whole grains and protein you would recieve from eating toast, eggs, and meat.
But, I prefer to have a light, moist, fruit rich breakfast myself. The heavier alternative leaves me feeling sluggish all day. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
And yes, "vibrant" is an excellent choice of words. That is what British culture lacks. It is not vibrant. I think British and I think of stormy gloomy weather hanging over everyone's heads, bland food, overly reserved people lacking in passion or warmth, and no artistic vibrancy. And the people don't know how to relax and enjoy life. America is not like that at all. I think it has to do with the weather. I honestly do. | ||||||||||
| Porthos |
And Fab, where do you find all these good pictures from? I do an image search on Google and I come up with nothing but useless crap. | ||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I can easily imagine the Queen eating a yogurt parfaît. However, I cannot imagine her eating bacon and eggs. Bacon makes me feel sick every time I see it.
Fair enough. It's just that the idea of eating a lot of fat every morning has never really seemed like a good idea to me. |
||||||||||
| fab |
London if often considered as the most vibrant city of Europe. But maybe London is not considered part of the British culture ? 
 I'm an expert in googlisation !! But my technics are secret !
As for the Breackfast subject; what is funny is that in France most nutritionists blame the light and quick french breakfast and prone a real meal, with meats, fruits, cereals and vegetables. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
You raise an interesting point there. To me, London is kind of just London. I almost never go there, and when I do, I don't really have a mentality of being in England/Britain because it seems so different from anywhere else here — I just think 'I'm in London'. Essentially, London is not really included in my image of 'Englishness'. British people from outside of London often claim that Londoners think that London is the whole world, lol. |
||||||||||
| fab |
I think London is the whole world, but in a very british way.
The same way Paris is the whole world too, but in a very French way. We could say the same for most European capitals, I think they are in the same time cosmopolitan places and very emblematic of the whole country of those they are capital... That is maybe the reason why I love the big metropolitan cities. I went this summer to Madrid, it was a great discovery (I didn't know really this city before). It is sooo Spanish, and in the same time you see Chinese shopkeepers, latin-American immigrtants, European tourists, Japanese businessmen, Black African newcomers, etc... In a very Spanish way. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
What do you mean when you say it's "soooo Spanish"? Of course it is Spanish. It is a Spanish city. | ||||||||||
| fab |
Madrid is not just a city, it is the capital of Spain, and have been the center of a giant empire for centuries. It is the center of Castilla, the historic region of Spain, but in the same because it is the capital it is also a bit Galician, Basque, Andalucian, Catalan, etc. It is the geographic and historic center of Spain, the city of nightlife and tapas bar culture, and in the same time a city of imigrants from Romania, Morocco, Ecuador, Peru, Black Africa, etc.... |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
What I meant was that Londoners are often perceived to believe that that the world does not extend beyond London, lol. |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
Ah, so this is where this thread got moved to!
Milan is in Italy, and therefore in Southern Europe. Climate is not directly comparable latitude-for-latitude between Europe and North America, since certain sea currents make your northern latitudes much warmer than the same latitudes in North America. I don't think of "Northern" or "Southern" European cities primarily in terms of being cold or warm. It gets very cold here, after all, since NM is far inland, away from the moderating effects of the ocean, and is also at a high altitude. So there are many factors which affect local temperatures. However, when I was in Paris, it seemed very much like London in climate -- that entire region was cool and gray and mostly cloudy to my eyes. You may be interested to know that most Americans would never consider France a "Latin" country, either. Mostly that's reserved for Spain, Portugal, and Italy. The French are more likely to be lumped in with Germany, the UK, the Low Countries, etc. in our eyes. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
You know, I actually find that people in England tend not to make a Latin/Germanic distinction within Western Europe at all. People who have some very basic knowledge of linguistics would be able to classify European languages this way, but I don't think that it would occur to many people here to put geographical regions into 'cultural groups' according to language family. So, if you were to ask people here questions like 'is France a Latin country?' or 'is Denmark a Germanic country' etc., you'd usually get a pretty blank response, I'd imagine. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
I tried explaining that to Fab for some time. Most Americans do in fact group France in with northern European countries. And most people don't know what "Latin" and "Germanic" languages are, so they just base language grouping on certain sounds. They hear Spanish and Italian with rolled 'r's and lots of vowels at the end of words. But they hear French which does not sound like that, and they think it's more like the northern European languages. |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
Plus, I don't think we're as likely to group people culturally just on the basis of something as arbitrary (to our mind) as linguistics. After all, Romance languages are just a vestige of ancient occupation by a long-dead civilization; it links countries and people that might have originally been very different in culture. It was originally an artificial imposition, as the English language is on modern-day Americans, few of whom are of actually British background.
Benjamin is right; we tend to group the UK with Ireland, Germany with Austria, the Low Countries as their own group, and Scandinavia as a separate entity, despite the fact that all of them speak Germanic tongues; it doesn't make them one big happy family! Likewise for Romance-speakers, we consider France a northern European country, the Italians and Iberians to be "Latin", and Romania to be Eastern European. The language group is not important to us. |
||||||||||
| fab |
If I understand well the American thinking, the biggest french cities such as Marseille, Toulouse, Nice, Toulon, Montpellier, Bordeaux or Lyon are considered to be Northern European cities because situated in France; while Turin, Milan, or Venezia, which are situated more northern than the previous ones and which have a colder climate, are considered in southern Europe ?!! Whao... I find it quite incredible that a country which is in its great majority situated southern to the "average line" of Europe would be considered as a northerner country... By what kind of magics can it be possible ? Or maybe georgia is situated in the northern United states ?...
Northern European country ??!! : 
Yes that's true, and that's why Paris winters are warmer than Milan's ones.
wasn't you who claimed that the north/south division of Europe was a climatic one ? The problem of this thinking is that there are not only two European climates as such. There is a mediterranean one which cover SOME regions of southern Europe only, those close to the mediterranean sea. There is a continental climate, which include northern Italy, Germany, Austria, Central Europe, and most of eastern Europe. There is a polar-like climate in the extreme north of Europe. And there is a oceanic climate, which includes the oceanic facade, including part of Portugal, northern Spain, western France, the British isles, and even some parts of Norway. This is the climate you seem to have in mind when you think of Paris, with clouds and wet atmosphere. This is not a tipically northern European climate since you find this type of climates it as well in Spain than in England...
Paris and London both have oceanic climates, oceanic climate is a tipical climate of the west side of the continents (like in northern California or Oregon). Portugal's and Atlantic Spain's climates are the same type, and create the sam kind of atmospheres.
I understand that the Americans (or some of them since I don't know everyone), but it is a wrong image on almost all points, culture, languages, habits, way of life, geography, etc.) as I explained a lot of times on this board. But everyone is free to keep a inacurate idea if he wants. If I want to consider Georgia as a state of Northern USA because it doesn't look like exactly the image I have of southern USA (such as Florida stereotype)... I'm free to do it. [/img][/quote] |
||||||||||
| fab |
I heard that claimed by anglophone people thousands of times on antimoon or this forum. But nobody has never been able to tell me what are the point we would share with the UK, Germany, Netherlands, that we wouldn't with italy and Spain ? And that would make France a northern European country... |
||||||||||
| fab |
Being cool and gray is being north European ? The mediterranean fall and springs are famous for being very wet. And it can snow in winter... Based on this crtiterium, Is Spain a northern European country ?? [img]However, when I was in Paris, it seemed very much like London in climate -- that entire region was cool and gray and mostly cloudy to my eyes.[/img] 
Milan : 
|
||||||||||
| Deborah |
I've always thought of France as western European, without any northernness or southernness. | ||||||||||
| Porthos |
I notice you are using "Anglophone' more often now. That's good when dealing with Americans, because of the ambiguity of such a term in our language, which we usually associate with racial terms (being English, or northern European) or being of a blah, boring, cold culture like England's.
Fab, The only thing I can say to ease your suffering, is that you are analyzing this far too much. Sometimes things are just the way they are. Americans think of the Spanish/Portuguese/Italians as the swarthy, warm, passionate people of the sunny mediterranean world of southern Europe, while France is not seen in this light. Perhaps Americans are foolish in this way of thinking. But that's just the way it is. If you've noticed, since my conversations with you, my opinion or image of France in relation to other European countries has changed. I used to think of France as a country of northern European culture that happened to speak a Romance language which was by far the most "Germanic" of the Romance family. I also used to think of the French as being of a northern ethnic group, or as being primarily descended from continental Celts and Franks. I think this is because we normally see the French as being more reserved, and at least our media image of them is a people who look Central European (light skin, light brown hair, etc), whereas our image of Italians and Spaniards is a swarthy, dark featured, warm people. Over the last few months, you have helped me to realize that I was totally misinformed. But most people I talk to, espouse the same opinions I had several months ago. |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Absolutely. I don't really see why it matters. In England, people tend not to care whether or not a country is 'Northern European' or 'Southern European'. And if you're American, it's likely to be of even less importance, because they don't live there. Fab, it's probably similar to how you or I probably wouldn't really care about whether, say, Missouri is considered a Southern state, a Mid-Western state, a Western State, or whatever. And like it or not, the Romance language-speaking areas in Europe which seem to me to be the most similar to England or the Netherlands are Northern France, Wallonia and Brussels. Definitely not, say, Southern Italy. Imagine you're an American tourist. You go to Southern England (not London), Normandy and Sicily. Will you associate Normandy with Sicily more than with England? I entirely doubt it. |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
Fab, fab, fab, you're really expecting us to compartmentalize Europe way too much. First of all, we are not European. To us, it's a place thousands of miles away. Of course we are not going to divide it up the same way a native European is, of course we are going to be a lot more vague.
Well, of course not. Europe is a whole continent. It should have a number of different climate zones.
Exactly. Just as along the southern edge of the US you have semi-tropical Florida, the deserts of the southwest, and the more Mediterranean climate of California. New Mexico even has the southernmost skiing in the US, at Ski Apache and Cloudcroft.
We understand that designations like "northern" or "eastern" Europe are fairly arbitrary and that there will of course be a continuum between them. I don't expect some sharp line rigidly dividing any of these countries or regions; that would be silly. And we also don't think of the differences between any of these regions as being all that great -- after all, you're all Europeans, and we expect you to have a certain amount of similarity across the board.
I'm afraid I'm used to brilliant sunshine 350 days out of the year. Perhaps all of Europe would seem gloomy to me! 
But yes, the overcast does make an impression on me every time I go. However, I have not been to southern Europe, and you could certainly come here on a day when we were having one of our summer monsoons, and wonder who turned off the sun?
|
||||||||||
| Loic |
True. Geographically, I would categorise Normandy with Britain. But culturally, France belongs to the Latin sphere. If you do not believe me, just ask any organisation behaviour scholar. France is frequently categorised as a 'Latin European' country while the United Kingdom is classified in the 'Anglosphere' along with other traditionally English-speaking countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
If the French as a whole believe that their identity is more intimately caught up with the Latin countries to the south, who are we as outsiders to dispute their inalienable right to association? |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
The problem is, the French themselves, do without question, identify with the Latin countries to the south. But the outside world is not as quick to categorize them with these countries, especially not in America. There is always doubt whether France should be grouped in with Spain, Portugal, and Italy, while the others are not questioned. I don't know why. Here's what wikipedia says: <<Latin cultures (possible) Many cultures might be identified as Latin, by both the country's population and outsiders, but the latin identity of the culture could also be questioned by both the country's population and outsiders. Europe: France Romania Switzerland (parts of) Belgium (parts of) In general, these countries in Europe will have weak feelings about latin identity which reflect a feeling of irrelevance of being identified as a latin country or not. Americas: Bolivia Guatemala In general, these countries in the Americas will have a political split between those who are happy with being identified as latin and those who are unhappy with it. Most inhabitants may self-identify as latin, but other inhabitants may strongly object. In general, those primarily of Spanish, Portuguese or other European descent are more likely to be happy with being identified as latin, while those primarily of indigenous descent are less likely to self-identify as latin, or to qualify their identity as latin. (NB: Most inhabitants of the Americas have both European and indigenous ancestry.) Asia: Philippines With the over 300 year Spanish colonization of the Philippines came a heavy influence on all aspects of Filipino culture. Although only a few thousand Filipinos actually speak the Spanish Language most of the Philippine languages (which are genetically linked to Malay and Indonesian) have significant admixtures of Spanish terms and expressions. It's estimated the official national language: Tagalog, has about 4, 000 terms that are of Spanish origin. Cebuano (aka Visayan), another Philippine language is estimated to have about 5,000 terms. There are also Spanish-based creoles still spoken by significant Visayan and Tagalog populations collectively called "Chabacano". Traditional music, traditional dress, folk dances, Zarzuelas (Filipino/Spanish operas) are very heavily influenced by Spain and Mexico. 80% of Philippine cuisine is said to be Spanish-based. The most profound and lasting effect of Spain in the Philippines is the 83% Roman Catholic population. Which makes it one of only two Roman Catholic countries in the Far East (the other one being East Timor) and also the third largest Roman Catholic country in the world behind Brazil and Mexico.>>> |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Since when was South Africa a 'traditionally English-speaking' country? I find it very surprising that you seem to have thought of South Africa before you thought of Ireland or New Zealand. Likewise, I am still not convinced that England is really more similar to, say, California than to, say, the Netherlands.
Personally, I'm just very suspicious of the idea of having such a strong 'identity' because I feel that it may sometimes lead to a hatred of so-called 'outsiders'. I absolutely hate British nationalism because it tends to focus on British superiority, opposition to immigration, Islamophobia (often because they perceive Muslims to interfere with our supposedly 'tolerant' lifestyle), Euroscepticism and a desire to reintroduce old an inefficient units of measurement; it does not encourage sufficient feelings of guilt which I feel that we ought to impose on ourselves. Likewise, British people who embrace a strong 'Anglophone' identity often seem to be Eurosceptic. I should mention, however, that this sort of identity sometimes excludes the United States, instead focussing only on Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But when it includes the United States, it tends to be very conservative and even more Eurosceptic (it's often perceived as a sort of 'one or the other' thing here — I have come across relatively few people who manage to be both pro-American and pro-European at the same time). Finally, my impression of those British people who attempt to embrace a pan-Germanic identity is that they are racist. It's not difficult to find British-based websites which celebrate the achievements of Mozart as 'Germanic' achievements or 'white Northern European' achievements, for example. Unfortunately, I have a very negative image of the idea of wanting to establish a strong 'identity', because to my mind, they often seem to be aimed at creating divisions and excluding so-called 'others'. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
Yes. Britain is many times more like the Netherlands or Germany than it is like California. The culture is completely different. The only similarity is really the language. And increasinly today, more and more Californians do not even speak English, so that goes out the window too. California is probably more similar to Australia than England. The climate, people's sun kissed tan, and everything like that. But Australia is still more like England than it is the United States. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
I think it's difficult to categorise France geographically — except she's clearly in Western Europe. Linguistically, the task is far easier : she's a Latin country — with three major Latin linguistic groups (Oïl, Oc & Arpitan), the fourth one belonging to la langue de Si (Corsican) plus other languages pertaining to non-Latin groups (Germanic, Basque & Celtic to be brief and not to mention languages like Arabic and Chinese).
It's even harder to categorise culturally. The only thing I can think of is France's traditional (read pre-1789), provincial make-up. 
|
||||||||||
| fab |
Greg,
Reconnais tout de même que le qualificatif de "pays d'Europe du nord" est tout de même assez inadéquat, tant culturellement que geographiquement, pour qualifier la France. Seules de rares régions telles le nord-pas-de-Calais, l'Alsace ou la Normandie présentent des caractéristiques pouvant être qualifiables de "nord-Européennes" (et encore...c'est souvent assez "folkorisé"). |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Oui, bien sûr. Mais c'est difficile d'affirmer que la Bretagne, l'Île-de-France et la Lorraine sont situées en Europe méridionale. Toutefois, si l'Europe du Nord c'est avant tout des endroits genre l'Écosse ou le Schleswig-Holstein, alors dans ce cas c'est très clair : la France n'est pas dans le Nord. | ||||||||||
| fab |
Oui, c'est sur. C'est ce que j'ai essayé (en vain) de faire comprendre à nos amis anglophones, que la France est géographiquement globalement située à cheval entre l'europe médiane et l'Europe méridionale. Paris, la Bretagne, et l'ensemble de la moitié nord de la France étant géographiquement situés a mi-chemin entre l'Europe du nord et du sud, tandis que la moitié sud, s'étant assez clairement dans l'Europe méridionale. Sans parler évidement des questions culturelles, une langue latine, les structures urbaines denses, la culture du vin, etc... font que le nord de la France est difficilement assimilable aux de l'Europe du nord-ouest.
Oui, mais l'Europe du Nord c'est aussi avant tout l'Islande, la Norvège, le Danemark, la suède, etc. ! |
||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin: I did not categorise South Africa alongside other traditionally English-speaking countries. Academics did. Ask them, not me. As I was doing inter-cultural leadership this semester, organisational behaviour scholars have broadly classified the world into 9 cultural dimensions of which France fall into 'Latin Europe' while countries such as the UK and yes, South Africa fall into 'Anglo'.
As for whether the UK is more similar to the Netherlands than California, let me assure you that you are more similar to your american cousins than you thought. For example, business cultural practices in the UK and the USA are more similar than those practised in the Netherlands. Let me give you an example: a Dutch boss is expected to engage in a more participatory form of leadership than his american or English counterpart. But then, the Netherlands fall into the category of 'Germanic Europe' where an achievement-orientated culture is as highly valued as in the 'Anglo' world. What would be significantly different would be the power distance culture - the acceptance of unequal power distribution is greater in 'Anglo' countries. And that is why I agree that South Africa is classified alongside other English-speaking countries. This is not just a question about language here. It is about the mindset regarding business ethics and practice. Of course, I accept that South Africa is not really an English-speaking country. But the public face she presents to the world is a monolinggual English-speaking one. I do not see anything wrong if an Englishman or a British choose to identify more with his Antipodean or Canadian cousins. Throw a monolinggual Englishman into Germany and put him in a similar situation in Australia - in which countries will he suffer more of a culture shock? I have been to Australia quite a number of times and I can see quite a number of superficial similarities with the UK: 1. People drive on the same side of the road. To me, for some idiosyncratic reason, I tend to regard countries which drive on the same side of the road as mine with a special fondness. It saves me the hassle of trying to readapt when I drive. 2. A Union Jack canton on their flag. Portraits of the Queen on 5 dollar banknote and on numerous coin denominations. 3. Playing sports which are also popular in the United Kingdom although admittedly, football in Oz refers to Aussie Rules football. Cricket has a bigger grip on the Australian public imagination than in England as well, I suppose. 4. Fish and Chips. I know you'd say that this is not a quintessential English food, that it was originally invented by immigrants and now largely sold by immigrants, etc. But just as this food is indelibly burnished into the English psyche, fish and chips also hold a special place in Australian society. Hmm...I always eat it with pepper and vinegar when I am there. 5. Australian spelling largely conforms to British spelling conventions. With the sole exception of the main opposition party, the Labor Party without the -u. 6. Schoolchildren wear uniform that are modelled after British ones. 7. People speak English. Let's take Germany as a comparison other, shall we? 1. People drive on the wrong side of the road. 2. Flag looks dissimilar. 3. Yes, football is king just as in England. But they don't play cricket and rugby, do they? And what the hell is handball? 4. I am sure they do not eat fish and chips. 5. They have a reformed spelling convention, but I am sure it has nothing to do with English. 6. Schoolchildren don't even wear uniforms. 7. They obviously don't speak English. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
The commonwealth countries are actually very similar to the U.K. But the U.S. is politically and culturally the most distant from the British model, among Anglophone countries. You might argue that Canada is more like the U.S. than it is England, but even so, the commonwealth countries have much more in common with Britain than the U.S. does. Even the accents of various commonwealth countries sound much closer to the English one than the American accent. | ||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I personally find this very difficult to relate to, as 'business practices' play no part in my background. Essentially everyone I know works for the public sector. I've heard of these so-called '9 dimensions' before. I'm rather sceptical of them, as three of the nine are in 'Germanic Europe', even though it's supposed to be a worldwide thing. To someone from, say, Cambodia, what is the difference between Britain, Germany and Sweden? Practically nothing. Yet apparently they go into three separate categories on a global scale, even though there are supposedly only nine of these? And to be honest, they probably wouldn't see much difference between any of them and France and Poland either, even though that supposedly adds a further two categories. It's just all seems terribly Eurocentric. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Ouais fab. On habite réellement un pays *très* particulier.
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Je ne suis pas sûr si tu parles sincèrement ou sarcastiquement. Mais tu es toujours très vague. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Eh oui. C'est l'avantage d'un mot comme particulier : on y met le sens qu'on veut. En l'occurrence je pensais à géographiquement inclassable. |
||||||||||
| fab |
La France ne fait pas clairement partie d'une zone d'Europe bien définie, géographiquement parlant. Ce qui est cependant clair, à la vue des cartes c'est que le pays ne fait certainement pas partie de l'Europe du nord, comme semblent le penser les Anglo-saxons (j'ai le droit de dire le mot, car c'est le sens Français du terme!) Si on prend en compte la dimension culturelle s'est encore plus évident. Je pense que l'association qu'ils font de la France à l'Europe du nord est due (comme l'a montré à de nombreuses reprises Josh) est que leur vision est souvent centrée sur Paris. Tandis que la France dans l'ensemble semble assez clairement pencher du coté sud de l'Europe, la position de Paris est plus ambigue. Personellement, geographiquement, je considère cette ville comme à l'articulation des deux (ce que j'appelerai l'Europe médiane (et non centrale pour ne pas confondre avec l'aire d'influence culturelle Germano-Austrio-hongroise que l'on nomme comunément Europe centrale). Je pense que de nombreuses personnes on tendence à considerer Paris comme ville "nord-Européenne", du au fait que géographiquement elle est relativement proche de Londres ou Amsterdam (villes généralement considérées d'Europe du nord, mais pour des raisons plus culturelles que géographiques, car s'il on prend pour référence des villes située CLAIREMENT en Europe du nord telles Copenhague ou Helsinki, Elles sont en réalité dans le sud de la moitié nord de l'Europe. Paris étant situé environ 250 ou 400 km plus au sud (ce qui est assez important à l'échelle de l'Europe) et ne partageant pas un bon nombre de ces caratéristiques culturelle nord-Européennes, est donc très difficilement classable dans cette catégorie de façon rationelle. En conclusion je dirait que la France est un pays de culture romane, géographiquement partagé entre l'Europe médiane et méridionale. De même manière, nous pouvons dire que l'Allemagne est un pays de culture germanique, situé entre l'Europe médiane et Septentrionale. Le sud de l'Allemagne (+Autriche/suisse) a, en Europe une position assez particulière aussi. N'étant pas géographiquement dans l'Europe du nord (la région est bien plus proche de l'Italie que du Danemark, produit de la vigne, possède une architecture différente de celle de l'Europe du nord que l'on qualifie d'Européenne du centre, des villes un peu plus denses, etc.) Mais fait partie d'un pays qui est globalement de culture nord-Européenne. Je trouve le concept d'Europe médiane (ou Europe du milieu) assez intéressant pour classer des regions ou des pays qui entrent difficilement dans le schéma nord-sud traditionnel, comme l'Autriche, la Hongrie, la Roumanie, etc. 
|
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
En plus, vue de l'extérieur, la France semble avoir plus de rapports politiques avec l'Allemange qu'avec l'Italie ou l'Espagne ; on parle souvent d'une politique « franco-allemande » plutôt que celle « latine ». D'après la presse britannique, la France et l'Allemagne (voire les Français et les Allemands) sont des très bonnes amies qui veulent toujours exclure le Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne. Cependant, j'ai découvert cette année que les rapports franco-allemands sont vraiment très superficiaux. |
||||||||||
| fab |
C'est vrai que lorsqu'on parle de la construction de l'union Européenne, on parle souvent de l'axe franco-Allemand. C'est essentiellement car, au moment de la fondation de l'union Européenne en 1957, La France et l'Allemagne en étaient les deux principales puissances économiques. Le fait que l'une des capitales de l'UE soit situé à la frontière Franco-Allemande (strasbourg) ajoute peut-être à cettre impression. Cependant la France a historiquement toujours eu des liens politiques avec l'Espagne ou l'Italie. La struture des partis espagnols est très similaire avec celle de la France (PS/PSOE, et UMP/Partido Popular). Quand à l'Italie elle est aussi un des membres fondateurs de l'UE et la France à toujours eu des liens politiques avec elle (n'oublions pas que le fondateur de l'unité Italienne est né en France, dans ma ville! - et le drapeau Italien est tout de même un peu inspiré du Français...) - la struture politique de l'Italie est assez similaire à celle de la France aussi, avec les même types de partis (PCF/ex-PCI, etc.)
En France nous avons plutôt l'impression que c'est le royaume-Uni qui ne veut pas s'impliquer plus dans l'union Européenne.
Au contraire l'Espagne semble très "Européanophile". D'une manière générale les relation Franco-Allemandes sont assez purement des relations "d'affaires", du à l'implication dans l'UE. Il n'y a pas d'amour réciproque de l'un envers l'autre, pas non plus de haine, mais une sorte d'indifférence. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
J'aime bien le concept d'Europe médiane. Mais il en est un autre que je trouve prépondérant ; c'est celui d'Europe occidentale. Où commence l'Est ? D'un point de vue hexagonal, l'Est de l'Europe médiane pourrait commencer en Alsace-Lorraine. En tout cas, l'Est de l'Europe méridionale commence en Italie. Les limites verticales diffèrent selon les coupes horizontales. Les frontières ne se laissent pas deviner facilement, mais l'Ibérie, la France et les Îles britanniques sont clairement à l'ouest.
On peut dire en effet que jusqu'à présent la France et l'Allemagne ont absolument tout fait pour coopérer et optimiser l'existant. Le cas échéant, le linge sale se lave en famille. C'est une attitude intelligente et constructive. J'espèrere qu'elle durera et que d'autres pays comprendront que non seulement l'union fait la force mais partager des expériences communes crée des liens fort utiles. |
||||||||||
| Uriel |
I haven't. What are they? |
||||||||||
| Loic |
Fab: J’ai l’impression que les liens politiques entre Paris et Berlin ne sont que superficiels. Si j’étais un français, j’imaginerais que je me sens plus proche à un italien qu’à un allemand, par exemple. Oublie pas que l’Allemagne et la France sont des ennemis historiques et il est très difficile d’enterrer la hachette en 60 ans. Franchement, que penses-tu des ‘Bochs’ à l’est de tes frontières ? Ils sont tes camarades, rivaux ou quoi ?
Moi, je fais jamais l’association de la France à l’Europe du Nord. A mon avis, les pays traditionnellement catholiques ne font pas partie des ceux du nord. En France, combien il ne sent naturel d’être diplômé, bien marié et Catholique ? Uriel: The 9 common cultural dimensions are as follows: 1. Performance Orientation The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. Research has shown that countries such as the USA and Singapore receive a higher score on this aspect than countries such as Russia and Greece where family and background count for more. 2. Assertiveness The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their relationships with others. Even without the benefit of research, we intuitively know that the americans score high in this aspect. Countries with a strong nurturing orientation such as Sweden or New Zealand prefer harmony and as such, are loath to employ the hardball business tactics that many Anglo-American chief executives typically pursue. 3. Future Orientation The extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviours such as delaying gratification, planning and saving for the future. Singapore and Switzerland are countries with a future orientation and typically have long-term planning horizons. 4. Humane Orientation The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, generous, altruistic, etc. Under Geert Hofstede's system of categorisation, countries with such an orientation have typically 'feminine' values. 5. Institutional Collectivism The degree to which organisational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources. 6.In-Group Collectivism The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesion to their immediate circles or families. 7. Gender egalitarianism The degree to which a collective minimises gender inequality. 8. Power Distance The degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally. 9. Uncertainty Avoidance The extent to which a society, organisation or team relies on social norms, rules and procedures to alleviate the unpredictability of future events. |
||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin:
How are the 9 dimensions euro-centric? I am not from Europe and I am fully convinced that while this model is not flawless, it goes a long way in explaining why leadership differs across cultures. If you take a look at 'Anglo' countries in general, you'd see that they share similar scores for many of the aforementioned dimensions. New Zealand is a little bit of an anomaly in many respects as they have higher scores for 'feminine' values such as humane orientation, gender egalitarianism, etc while they have lower scores for 'masculine' values such as performance orientation or assertiveness. Otherwise, business cultural practices in the 'Anglo' sphere are generally homogeneous and I would imagine that a British business leader who finds himself transplanted to say, South Africa, would need much less cultural adjustments than say, finding himself leading a team in Italy or Sweden. Have you travelled out of Europe before to another Commonwealth country? |
||||||||||
| Loic |
Because the population is largely illiterate and uneducated. But you have been to school and you are most likely going to continue your education after the A levels. Are you going to gloss over all the differences and homogenise them in order to fit your mental mode of Western Europe as being a culturally similar entity? This reminds me of another unrelated thread where Porthos and you question your compatriots' ability to make a distinction between such abstract concepts as 'Latin' and 'Germanic'. Sometimes, I feel that the average man on the street is smarter and more savvy than we think and we ought to give a bit of credit to the school education system in both the USA and the UK. I am sure that after 10 years of compulsory formal schooling, a school-leaver is able to recognise the dichotomy between these two cultural blocs. My grandmother barely completed primary school, but I remembered she telling me when I was younger that Latin and Italian are related languages. Now, how does a Chinese monolinggual woman born before the war have any inkling of language links located at the other end of the world? If my grandmother, bless her limited education, is able to make such an inference, I am sure that John Bull and Uncle Sam can do likewise. |
||||||||||