As if they were one homogenous voting block? The reason the French government is in a stalemate is because the people vote for so many different things that no coalition can form a governing majority.
Trying to describe that as "they all hate freedom because of the way they vote" is kinda weird, and quite ignorant.
I don't think any country can be described so singularly as "what the people vote for". There's always a diversity of opinions. Some countries suppress dissension, censor opposition, and only allow certain voting choices (e.g., Russia, China, Belarus, etc.); but even those countries have dissention, the dissention is just kept quiet by the repression and censorship.
But the French? Dissention is part of their culture. Political opposition is alive and well there. So try understanding what you're talking about before posting something ignorant next time.
"But, but, but the us country is huge. We can't be expected to protest about something all the way over there..."
"But, but, but, wait for the midterms. We'll sort it then."
"But, but, but, the protests are gaining steam now. It's not easy to coordinate these things and we need time...{also we'll conveniently ignore you when you point out that we live in a world of instant communication and that protests and strikes were coordinated decades ago when we didn't have today's technology}"
Glad to hear - we don’t hear about it as much up in Canada lately. The news cycle is always desperate to keep up with whatever the orange buffoon is fucking up next
Oh yeah. That's true. The news really dropped off once the federal government "pulled back" ICE. But they're still doing the same shit. Still kidnapping. We're still documenting and doing our stuff.
I mean in a certain sense they are a bit true, the French protested for so long that Paris has created the Rue in order to have some control over the crowds
With regard to point 3, 'today's technology' is very much a double edged sword. Yes, you can communicate instantly but surveillance has modernized just as much.
As reductive as it sounds, I think part of the issue is it happens all the time in other countries because it happens all the time in other countries. The connections to each other already exist. The networks already exist. All the instant communication in the world doesn't make a lick of difference if you have no idea who else to call. At this point, I feel like that's the real benefit of protests. You gotta meet like minded people somewhere to get any real momentum and third spaces are pretty fucking dead.
I don't think the issue is necessarily a lack of will to organize now, I think the issue was a lack of will to do so years ago. Hell, decades ago for that matter. So now the people that genuinely do care have to build their entire network from the ground up while under heavy surveillance which yes, is going to be fucking slower.
Not at the moment. But that's mainly because other countries shouldn't really be invading each other over domestic issues!
However there was a huge 'protest' about 90 years ago when a useless dictator tried to overtake a massive part of the world. You really should look up history about it and see how they tackled that dictator, they didn't have today's technology and that 'protest' spanned a huge area.
It'd be very helpful, though that does require you putting a bit of effort in...
Middle aged American here, and when I was a kid the culture around me regarding france was basically "lol they surrender." And that whole stupid thing probably peaked in 2003 with Freedom Fries.
But now?
I honestly wonder if any other nation's population has their heads on straight as much as the French. The only place in Europe where I have spent much time though is up in Sweden, and the nords seem pretty good at life-ing too.
They've been flirting with far-right government like most everyone else, but their protesting game is on point. The whole country being smaller than Texas helps, too.
Yeah, the average population density of the US is a lot lower than many people realize. Protests are seen as city-based things, both geographically and culturally.
And then you have eu-nation-sized red states that can hold many many trumpers who are unable to play nice with others because they don't have to have neighbors.
I didn't really finish my thought there. Apologies.
It was starting to get at why we don't really see "the americans" protested like we might "the french." And our media doesn't help in how they report it. It enables the republican populace as well as the entire government to more easily ignore it. It's always "protests broke out in cities across america in response to X.
The physical separation is also part of it. it all helps feed into this "divide" where the republican voters can seemingly give no shits about human suffering or the rise of fascism because it's all happening to "other" people far away. It might as well be the middle east.
People without neighbors are also less clued into to how policy changes affect entire societies of people, rather than just the price of gas for their truck.
And like the other reply said, this is just one contributing factor.
Disagree... It's not "reported" as news, but if 5% of a town showed up to a protest, that's a big fkn deal to the people who see it, and makes them aware that the protest exists.
It's only one factor. The bigger factor is that our police are insanely militarized. If my black ass tried to barbecue at a protest, I'd get gunned the fuck down, then I'd be unnamed in the news stories (if there were any), and the cop would get a medal for killing a "terrorist".
That's more like it. Americans (just like Russians) like to automatically dismiss all the critique and calls to action with this knee-jerk "country big" reaction, and since you can't actually do anything with a country being big, it's a bit of a thought terminating cliché. Meanwhile, the size of a country rarely has anything to do with anything
Historically, the French really only surrendered once, unfortunately evocative of the "but you fuck a goat one time ..." joke. It didn't help that they surrendered to one of the biggest monsters in history, at a time where they arguably didn't need to surrender. TBF, the main reason their biggest ally (Britain) didn't surrender at the same time was the fact that they were able to run away.
The other thing to remember is that when they surrendered they surrendered their entire naval fleet to the Nazis which was really irksome because why did they do that? So then the British had to launch a mission to sink the French naval fleet. All of which was a giant waste of resources, those ships could have come over to the UK.
Obviously it's all water under the bridge now but it was a tactically stupid decision.
when they surrendered they surrendered their entire naval fleet to the Nazis
This is absolutely not correct. The Nazis didn't try to seize (what was left of) the French fleet until the end of 1942 (more than two years later) in response to the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa. The French fleet remained under Vichy France's control and the French admiral had promised to scuttle the fleet if the Germans attempted to seize it. Churchill did not consider this assurance adequate for the security of his country and ordered the attack. It's worth noting that France did scuttle most of their remaining vessels when the Germans attempted to take them in 1942.
Should the French fleet have continued fighting? As I mentioned in my comment, the entire country could have and probably should have continued fighting. But once France surrendered, there's no particularly logical reason why just one part of their military should have gone on.
The french kind of didn't, the french administration did.
The french army had many problems, for the most part because it was not a standing army. These were more or less I'll equipped military, which where basically overrun by German tanks. However the french army also was in no small part responsible for holding off the germans at Dunkirk and nearly broke down the supply lines of the German Blitzkrieg. They mostly didn't flee.
On d day the first waves of troops where also a lot of french exile troops stormy into machine gun fire. Also on d day the french resistance sabotaged the railway network and infrastructure in general so good, that the railway system only worked on 30% capacity, some balloons where running out on puncture repair kits and German tank divisions where delayed by up to 2 weeks.
Have an extensive history of military might, from rampaging barbarian hordes, to a continent-conquering emperor, to a foreign legion famed as being one of the most badass fighting forces in the world, and nobody bats an eye. But get embarrassingly outflanked one time, and you never hear the end of it!
::: spoiler explanation since the comm isn't History Memes this time
"rampaging barbarian hordes" -- the Gauls
"continent-conquering emperor" -- Napoleon
"foreign legion" -- the French Foreign Legion
"embarrasingly outflanked" -- the failure of the Maginot Line in WWII
:::
There was the loss in WWII, but there was also the loss of all their colonies after WWII. Some of them they fought for and lost like Vietnam and Algeria. The reputation of the French for losing wasn't accurate, but it also wasn't based on nothing.
I watched Les Mis, and there's the song about clothes wet from the rain, sticking to thier skin, while the rich are getting richer.
I wonder how the movie would do if it came out now... (But even then, people would complain about Russel Crowe.)
::: spoiler also also
Tom Hooper can't get lucky. Kings Speach vs Social Network. I didn't like The Kings Speech. (Maybe im biased with Social Network being my personal favourite movie of all time). I wasnt on the internet for that oscar race, but at least Social Network is getting more praise than the Kings Speach.
Les Mis got hated on because Russell Crowe (bad singing) and Anne Hathaway (in like 1/8th of the movie and nominated for best actress).
and then Cats which is... Cats...
And now, I noticed, Tom also directed The Danish Girl, which I havent watched yet, but I remember the controversy...
I love the French because every other country I have been to besides France where I have attempted to speak the language, people are super appreciative of my efforts, even if I'm shit.
Not so in France. There's often an air of arrogant expectation, because making an effort to speak French isn't considered going above and beyond, but is expected (and if your French is mediocre, then you are not meeting that expectation). This isn't always as abrasive as I make it sound here, but it is a sharp contrast to my experience in other countries.
I weirdly like this though. It's a reflection of how British people travel about the world with a default assumption that many people will speak English. I have a Norwegian friend, for example, who said that when he was travelling, he was grateful that he knew English, because there would often be some people who could speak at least some English in most places he went. Attempting to speak French in France reminds me of how much privilege I have when travelling, because the French are as stubborn about expecting people to speak French as the English are about English. But the French are mainly like this within France, whereas English folk carry their expectations everywhere with them.
France feels like our sibling — we have a tumultuous relationship that could easily give the impression that we hate each other, but it's far deeper than that. One of my interests is fashion history, and it's so funny how many instances there are of a trend originating in France that people in Britain take notice of and want to emulate — in part because it is French: trends that are developing in a different cultural context, and are thus exotic and interesting compared to British fashion. Sometimes there'll be attempts to stop trends from crossing the channel, but that just makes them seem cooler. If you want an example of one such trend, this video from Abby Cox is great.
But the cultural exchange happened in the other direction too; sometimes a trend would start in Britain and slowly diffuse over to France. Stuff like this is why I see the French as being our family. For better or for worse, we are joined together by history.
French language is the original lingua franca, it's no wonder that if you admit that you don't speak well yet, they will simply ask "Why not?" It's probably not as far as we'd expect from the hauteur of English-speaking tourists, we just get our way more often I think. When I took my family to Paris last year I expected to get some of that high-handed treatment, but even out as far as Calais they were almost unfailingly forgiving of my decidedly mediocre attempts. I hope to go back soon, armed with a little more of the language.
What's funny that if you're a French Canadian, you spend most of your life resentful that English is everywhere. Quebec has laws doing everything possible to try to prevent English from becoming a major language in Quebec. But, as soon as someone from Quebec goes travelling, they're probably grateful that they know English because it's the common language of the world these days.
I grew up primarily speaking English. But, I don't think I'm too arrogant about expecting everyone else to speak it. I'm always pleasantly surprised when there are signs in English in places where there can't be that many tourists.
What I did kind-of take for granted wasn't necessarily English, but it was the Roman character set. When I went travelling in East Asia, I came across Thai script, Korean, Japanese and Chinese. Previously when I'd travelled in other places, if I didn't know the language, I at least knew the letters. So, I might not have known how to pronounce the name of a place, but I could still read it and match it to the place I was looking for. But, when I was in Japan, I had to try to remember that the stop I wanted was the one where the first symbol sort of looked like a box with some scribbles inside and a lid on top, then the next one looked like a T but with two bars at the top instead of one.
They don’t specifically follow the tram tracks, but in major European cities, tram tracks are simply everywhere. As the route of the protest has to be registered in advance, it’s very easy to plan for this.
With standard wheels on the barbecue, it would be far too bumpy to barbecue properly. And the risk of everything tipping over is 100 times greater.
It's not dystopian, just democratic. Any democratic constitution reserves a very universal right to protest. You still have to notify the police beforehand so that they can reroute traffic. Of course the police also ensure that the protest doesn't turn violent, but first and for all they provide for the safety of the protesters.
The police here in the US are nothing like that. If you call the police to let them know you'll be protesting you're just asking for trouble, it's like taunting them before trying to fight them. I wouldn't be surprised if they show up at your house to harass you, or somehow set it up to where your planned protesting spot is either unavailable or otherwise impossible to use. They've been known to arrest people for giving water to the homeless, those waiting in line to vote, protestors, and pretty much anyone the government or specific officers dislike. It's commonly stated here in the US that short of a murder occuring, there is no good reason to call the police unless you want a murder to occur.
If you are wealthy in the US then calling the police is a positive because they actually do what you want and ignore all the petty shit they normally make a big deal out of. It all comes down to money and influence.
Registering a protest in advance is standard practice in the US and Canada, too. Cities can and do enforce basic rules for crowd control, rerouting traffic, etc. For example, you might be allowed to organize a protest in a public park during daylight hours, but if you do it at 2am in the streets of a residential area the cops are going to arrive and shut you down.
Are their tram rails powered? If they are, it could be using that power to cook while moving. I assume they aren't, at least not the rails but maybe overhead power, but it would be cool.
In some places they are powered. It's generally much more expensive to do safely so it's only done in historic places where overhead wires would ruin the place.
I know It's the case in the centre of Reims for example.
We have a whole Quebec political party that's about not voting for federal elections... Want to protest against the libs or the cons? Vote for the Block!
As an Ontarian I appreciate the BQ. All I'm saying is Quebecois don't burn nearly as much shit as the French. And the rets of us aren't doing anything. Having a less capital-compliant part of Canada would be good for all of us.
And yet i've never seen a french protest where they had decent sound system. Not that important when the goal is to make noise, but they sure got their priorities
This comment prompted me to check the gauge of my city's streetcar, and I am happy to report that it is standard gauge as well. Too bad it only goes down two streets so it's relatively unlikely that a protest would march along it.
(I kinda need a new barbecue anyway, so it's still a design criterion to keep in mind, just in case.)
If I can have a sausage sizzle as I'm protesting, I would go out more often.
::: spoiler StoryTime
I once got called out to protest for 'personal freedoms'. They didn't explain much further.
I get there and its full on anti vaxx. They want their freedom to work without a vaccine. Wish I had the balls to walk away, but I stood there for an hour or 2. (Oh yeah. I'm in Australia, but the guy who invited me posted sympathy for Charlie Kirk. So I'm glad we not talking anymore)
Will never forget that fireman, who probably come back from saving someone's life (or at least, coming back from saving someone's property) giving a thumbs down to the protest.
100%, it wasn't at me directaly, but now 4-5 years on, I still remember him.
::: spoiler can I do a story time WITHIN a story time?
Whenever Violet08 posts, there will be a tonne of comments along the lines of "oh. This account again".am I recognised here too? I always post a lot after a few drinks, so maybe 1-2 people will recognise a spam post, look up and see 'oh. Midsized is drinking again'
Whenever the governments of the US and Canada do anything we can’t even be fucked to do much of anything, so I think shutting the hell up and letting the French do what they do is probably better than trying to mock them for at least trying.
Do those actually achieve anything? The biggest protests I heard about where the ones against pensions reform and this reform was only delayed when the ruling party failed to form the government several times. It was result of typical politics, not protests.
What I see happening over and over in Spain is:
Some union announces a strike and presents it demands
They sit and negotiate with the government
(optional) They don't reach an agreement, strike is enacted and services are limited to legally guaranteed 'necessary minimum'
They reach an agreement, strike ends.
No protests, no grilling on the tram rails. Just negotiating and using legal leverage. Last one was railway strikes after series of accidents. They reached an agreement before the strike. Unions called it "historic" and won better investment in maintenance and personnel.
So, do the French protest actually achieve anything or does it only look nice in memes? Can someone give some examples of what they won recently?
Protests and labor strikes increase the leverage workers have when negotiating for better compensation. There is no leverage if there is no protest.
One of my favorite examples was a mutiny during WWI where they were fed up with charging to their deaths. The tangible results were the commander got sacked and they didn't have to charge to their death.
The french, specifically, have a long tradition of putting their foot down and refusing to accept what their government is doing. I don't have specific links discussing it, but I know that occasionally entire major motorways will be shut down because farmers or lorry drivers have blocked them with heavy industrial machines, and they stay that way until those people decide to move.
I also know that there's an entire region (Brittany) where the motorways aren't toll roads, unlike the rest of France, because every time they try the cameras and toll booths get destroyed.
Originally, the yellow vests protested because of an increase onfuel tax, to finance environmental measures. They got that tax increase to be halted.
Also, agricultors regularly protest and get the reintroduction of harmful pesticides.
Basically, the only trade-off the government is ready to accept is giving up on ecological progress.
Yes, but what did they achieve? I know about the protests. The wiki article you linked doesn't mention any gains.
"Participation in the weekly protests diminished and eventually ended entirely due to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, although minor protests continued after health restrictions were lifted."
Those were mainly Macron opponents protesting and demanding his resignation. He didn't resign. They had some other demands but the article doesn't mention if any of them were realized by the government.
So yes, the protests looked nice in pictures but besides damaging some property, what did they achieve?
Edit: I'm not sure why I'm being upvoted. Yes, the "35-hour" protests were amazing, but turns out they did not win the thing they wanted. The law was fucked with in exactly the way that the government said it would fuck with it, and they pushed it through by force.
Very curious you claim that they maintained 35 hours work week while only posting a link about the protests. It's like people think that protesting something == getting something.
You seem to be right. I was wrong. I really thought they won that one!
The showing was amazing and inspiring, but if they didn't win the thing they were fighting for, then we need to learn a lesson from that too. Thanks for pushing back.
They achieve a lot less since Macron is in power. He "listen to the street" (to the unions actually) a lot less than its predecessors. The yellow jackets had to go very far, with a lot of victims, just to get a few concessions. Repression is a lot more fierce with a lot of police violence. This had the effect of discouraging a lot of people, protests are generally smaller lately. It makes some think that direct actions is the only way now but not much has happened.
To find national protests with real achievement you'll need to search before Macron. There were some local achievements lately though. And protest are not done alone, there are usually strikes, negotiations and legal leverages at the same time.
This picture is actually from 2018 I think, so the beginning of Macron as president.
In some cases I think it does help to protest and take to the streets and not only strike. For example striking dock workers and metal factory workers is one thing. Having them march on the capital is another still... There's definitely overlap between these groups of workers and soccer hooligan groups for example. A large protest of certain groups imply the promise of non-state controlled violence if agreements aren't reached.
Other case is when the protests is just really really big. A few hundred thousand does work to get the message spread more clearly how 'willing' they are to keep striking. While striking and just sitting at home during strike sends rather mixed signals.
It also enforces the "we're in this together" in the workers.
It all sounds nice in theory but does it work in practice? I'm asking because I really don't know what the effects are in France. We see a lot of marching but what are the actual results? As I said, the biggest recent protests I heard about were those against pension reform and those didn't achieve anything. Did they the unions also strike to abolish this reform? From what you're saying the protests would indicate there was a will to strike and the "we're in this together" message was definitely there. The government didn't budge. Did it work in other cases?
One example where I know mass protests worked were coal miners protests in Poland. Any time the government tries to reform the unprofitable mines the mines go to Warsaw, block the streets, burn some tires, punch some politicians if needed and get what they want. This only serves the interest of this very small group and every one else loses. Other groups like teaches and nurses that don't want to punch politicians never get anything.
In Spain the government is way more scared of big scale disruption over long period of time that one time traffic problems in the capital. You limit the railway network capacity to 60% (legally you can't limit it more) over couple of days and the whole country feels the pain. You organize a protest in the capital and one city suffers for couple of hours. I wonder how does this compare to France. Do they also strike? Do they achieve anything?
I'm not very familiar with situations in every country ;) A bit in Belgium and Germany. In Belgium it is like the Polish miners: if certain groups are involved, I think the effect is felt in agreements in the end. But that is still what is needed after all: agreements. No union wants to strike forever, there is money to be made after all, striking is expensive for the workers (which is a main reason unions exist at all). Workers and owners share similar goals, don't forget: work, make money, be wealthy. Strikers generally aren't disputing that, all they are disputing is how much % of the wealth goes to whom.
If the Metallurgy takes to the street, politicians are scared. If farmers/truckers block highways, politicians are scared. If dockers go to Brussels, they bring fireworks (also literally), politicians are for sure scared of them. These do happen to be some of the best paid 'low education' jobs. Is it a coincidence?
The magic is, and it happens rather rare indeed, that all of them strike together, you need the dockers supporting the nurses etc. Unfortunately I think the battle against the pension age is lost everywhere. The EU serves as a divider by the way: we're always told we need to earn less of pension later or ... because "all our neigbouring countries are more competitive in this field!". Then you tune in to the media in the neighbouring countries: it's the same fairytale. The capital succeeded in dividing the workers across Europe, unions across EU-inner-borders extremely rarely join forces, and it has become a major weakness of the unions in EU today.
In my experience the general public transport strikes do more bad than good to the workers, for sure in the long run. These strikes are just way to common, general opinion outside the profession is that they are already generously treated for pensions, holidays, etc.
Then there are a few groups of workers... they barely have to announce a strike and they'll get what they want. One group is the train drivers (not all public transport, just the drivers). Another are the maritime pilots. If these strike, nothing moves. All ships/trains are blocked and the entire economy bleeds like crazy immediately.
But no, I can't provide you with any concrete evidence of protests actually having forced a better deal than if no protest would have been held. It's a gut feeling i guess. I don't think there has been a lot of A/B testing on this, tricky to organize ;) And between countries cultures and striking traditions are just a tad too different to be able to compare it easily.
I don't expect you to know the situation in France. I was hoping someone from France will answer that :)
I agree with you 100% on the rest. This is what it looks like in most countries. Some groups have bigger leverage and win confrontations easily, other groups never win. Some groups protests to get something, other groups don't have to.
I'm just wondering why Internet is promoting France as some masters of protesting. As you said, people also protest and strike in Belgium and Germany and get things done. I see news about mass protests in France but not much news about deals being made. Friend that worked in France for some time claimed that they simply irrationally oppose any changes, even small improvements and eventually nothing gets ever done. From my visits to France I have a picture of a country where everyone is frustrated that nothing works. If you look at some actual data like actual hours worked, paid holidays or maternity leave France is doing OK but not better than other countries. So I'm absolutely not saying that protests and strikes don't work. I'm asking if they work in France? Are they actually good at getting concessions from the government or do they just march a lot?
French people are very serious about 2 things:
La Liberté et La Cuisine
Yeah, you stop believing in the first part when you see what they vote for.
As if they were one homogenous voting block? The reason the French government is in a stalemate is because the people vote for so many different things that no coalition can form a governing majority.
Trying to describe that as "they all hate freedom because of the way they vote" is kinda weird, and quite ignorant.
I don't think any country can be described so singularly as "what the people vote for". There's always a diversity of opinions. Some countries suppress dissension, censor opposition, and only allow certain voting choices (e.g., Russia, China, Belarus, etc.); but even those countries have dissention, the dissention is just kept quiet by the repression and censorship.
But the French? Dissention is part of their culture. Political opposition is alive and well there. So try understanding what you're talking about before posting something ignorant next time.
The whole country made a big deal about being sad about a nazi dying and you're talking about political opposition?
Stay deluded.
You'll have to specify what you're referring to, and somehow quantify "the whole country being sad" about it.
Otherwise you're just a troll.
I would like to see the rest of the comment about "climate accords polar bears", please.
Yeah same I’m curious now.
I found those on a 💩website https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/climate-paris-2015-polar-bear.html?sortBy=relevant
But we need to know what were the bears doing!
Dying from climate change 🙁
Well, you ever got stuck on a drifting shrinking ice sheet drifting into the ocean? Id sheet myself as well.
Hero, thank you
You can't do that in USA. You don't have the public transport infrastructure.
Ahhh but many cities and towns have some sort of rails in the streets, and bonus: they're not being used!
Yeah but they're all filled in and broken.
I just thought of how that would look on the San Francisco cable car tracks. Fast sausages.
Well, hot dogs are fast food.
Guys, take lessons, take lessons!
Excuses incoming in 3, 2, 1...
"But, but, but the us country is huge. We can't be expected to protest about something all the way over there..."
"But, but, but, wait for the midterms. We'll sort it then."
"But, but, but, the protests are gaining steam now. It's not easy to coordinate these things and we need time...{also we'll conveniently ignore you when you point out that we live in a world of instant communication and that protests and strikes were coordinated decades ago when we didn't have today's technology}"
Here in Minnesota we've still been protesting every week....
Glad to hear - we don’t hear about it as much up in Canada lately. The news cycle is always desperate to keep up with whatever the orange buffoon is fucking up next
Oh yeah. That's true. The news really dropped off once the federal government "pulled back" ICE. But they're still doing the same shit. Still kidnapping. We're still documenting and doing our stuff.
I mean in a certain sense they are a bit true, the French protested for so long that Paris has created the Rue in order to have some control over the crowds
The rue?
It's a sauce used for thickening, but that's not important right now
It's more like a thickener used for sauce, but yeah, that's also not important right now.
I don't know the exact name but it's these large streets
Edit: I mean boulevards
Boulevards? Grand boulevards?
I'm confused because "rue" in French is literally "street" in English 😁.
Yeah those
"Rue" is just french for "street", so, I don't know what this is supposed to be saying.
With regard to point 3, 'today's technology' is very much a double edged sword. Yes, you can communicate instantly but surveillance has modernized just as much.
As reductive as it sounds, I think part of the issue is it happens all the time in other countries because it happens all the time in other countries. The connections to each other already exist. The networks already exist. All the instant communication in the world doesn't make a lick of difference if you have no idea who else to call. At this point, I feel like that's the real benefit of protests. You gotta meet like minded people somewhere to get any real momentum and third spaces are pretty fucking dead.
I don't think the issue is necessarily a lack of will to organize now, I think the issue was a lack of will to do so years ago. Hell, decades ago for that matter. So now the people that genuinely do care have to build their entire network from the ground up while under heavy surveillance which yes, is going to be fucking slower.
True....
You really get involved in France, if you want it or not. Great for democracy IMO.
Oh, is all of Europe protesting in unity when protests are happening in Paris? i must have missed that.
Not at the moment. But that's mainly because other countries shouldn't really be invading each other over domestic issues!
However there was a huge 'protest' about 90 years ago when a useless dictator tried to overtake a massive part of the world. You really should look up history about it and see how they tackled that dictator, they didn't have today's technology and that 'protest' spanned a huge area.
It'd be very helpful, though that does require you putting a bit of effort in...
I mean.... What is a shitty little protest in Madrid gonna do to Brussels? You are comparing apples to oranges.
Protesting local matters, like French people being pissed about French shit makes sense. The French understand their power structure well.
Protesting continental matters is considerably more tricky, because of the distance involved.
Comparing all of the US to all of Europe is an apples to apples comparison.
And you see how well the anti isreal genocide protests are going.... So appreciate you making my point for me.
Protesting in Houston does fuckall to Washington in the immediate.
For what. To utilize all the rail lines in my city to grill.
Middle aged American here, and when I was a kid the culture around me regarding france was basically "lol they surrender." And that whole stupid thing probably peaked in 2003 with Freedom Fries.
But now?
I honestly wonder if any other nation's population has their heads on straight as much as the French. The only place in Europe where I have spent much time though is up in Sweden, and the nords seem pretty good at life-ing too.
They've been flirting with far-right government like most everyone else, but their protesting game is on point. The whole country being smaller than Texas helps, too.
Yeah, the average population density of the US is a lot lower than many people realize. Protests are seen as city-based things, both geographically and culturally.
And then you have eu-nation-sized red states that can hold many many trumpers who are unable to play nice with others because they don't have to have neighbors.
How on earth the fact that your country also has wast swats of empty land stops you from doing effective protesting? Or any, actually.
I didn't really finish my thought there. Apologies.
It was starting to get at why we don't really see "the americans" protested like we might "the french." And our media doesn't help in how they report it. It enables the republican populace as well as the entire government to more easily ignore it. It's always "protests broke out in cities across america in response to X.
The physical separation is also part of it. it all helps feed into this "divide" where the republican voters can seemingly give no shits about human suffering or the rise of fascism because it's all happening to "other" people far away. It might as well be the middle east.
People without neighbors are also less clued into to how policy changes affect entire societies of people, rather than just the price of gas for their truck.
And like the other reply said, this is just one contributing factor.
Protesting in the bumfuck nowhere gives no results. 10 people protested in village of 200 isn't news. 2k people protested in 200 villages isn't news.
Disagree... It's not "reported" as news, but if 5% of a town showed up to a protest, that's a big fkn deal to the people who see it, and makes them aware that the protest exists.
Couple of years ago, "mud wisard" made an international news, and it was a protest of a dozen people in an empty village in the middle of nowhere.
It's only one factor. The bigger factor is that our police are insanely militarized. If my black ass tried to barbecue at a protest, I'd get gunned the fuck down, then I'd be unnamed in the news stories (if there were any), and the cop would get a medal for killing a "terrorist".
That's more like it. Americans (just like Russians) like to automatically dismiss all the critique and calls to action with this knee-jerk "country big" reaction, and since you can't actually do anything with a country being big, it's a bit of a thought terminating cliché. Meanwhile, the size of a country rarely has anything to do with anything
Historically, the French really only surrendered once, unfortunately evocative of the "but you fuck a goat one time ..." joke. It didn't help that they surrendered to one of the biggest monsters in history, at a time where they arguably didn't need to surrender. TBF, the main reason their biggest ally (Britain) didn't surrender at the same time was the fact that they were able to run away.
The other thing to remember is that when they surrendered they surrendered their entire naval fleet to the Nazis which was really irksome because why did they do that? So then the British had to launch a mission to sink the French naval fleet. All of which was a giant waste of resources, those ships could have come over to the UK.
Obviously it's all water under the bridge now but it was a tactically stupid decision.
This is absolutely not correct. The Nazis didn't try to seize (what was left of) the French fleet until the end of 1942 (more than two years later) in response to the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa. The French fleet remained under Vichy France's control and the French admiral had promised to scuttle the fleet if the Germans attempted to seize it. Churchill did not consider this assurance adequate for the security of his country and ordered the attack. It's worth noting that France did scuttle most of their remaining vessels when the Germans attempted to take them in 1942.
Should the French fleet have continued fighting? As I mentioned in my comment, the entire country could have and probably should have continued fighting. But once France surrendered, there's no particularly logical reason why just one part of their military should have gone on.
Well actually...
The french kind of didn't, the french administration did. The french army had many problems, for the most part because it was not a standing army. These were more or less I'll equipped military, which where basically overrun by German tanks. However the french army also was in no small part responsible for holding off the germans at Dunkirk and nearly broke down the supply lines of the German Blitzkrieg. They mostly didn't flee.
On d day the first waves of troops where also a lot of french exile troops stormy into machine gun fire. Also on d day the french resistance sabotaged the railway network and infrastructure in general so good, that the railway system only worked on 30% capacity, some balloons where running out on puncture repair kits and German tank divisions where delayed by up to 2 weeks.
It does seem they're suffering from the same rightward-slide that many other countries are facing though, unfortunately.
As an European, I still can't believe you guys did that
Clearly you've never seen a marketer and a politician in a room together.
Copied from my earlier comment elsewhere:
::: spoiler explanation since the comm isn't History Memes this time
One post that I read somewhere else on fedi was in the lines of, you can't reasonably think French are cowards, they made snails into fine cuisine.
There was the loss in WWII, but there was also the loss of all their colonies after WWII. Some of them they fought for and lost like Vietnam and Algeria. The reputation of the French for losing wasn't accurate, but it also wasn't based on nothing.
I watched Les Mis, and there's the song about clothes wet from the rain, sticking to thier skin, while the rich are getting richer.
I wonder how the movie would do if it came out now... (But even then, people would complain about Russel Crowe.)
::: spoiler also also
Tom Hooper can't get lucky. Kings Speach vs Social Network. I didn't like The Kings Speech. (Maybe im biased with Social Network being my personal favourite movie of all time). I wasnt on the internet for that oscar race, but at least Social Network is getting more praise than the Kings Speach.
Les Mis got hated on because Russell Crowe (bad singing) and Anne Hathaway (in like 1/8th of the movie and nominated for best actress).
and then Cats which is... Cats...
And now, I noticed, Tom also directed The Danish Girl, which I havent watched yet, but I remember the controversy...
:::
Absolutely fantastic. Once you get over the initial chuckle at how novel a concept it is, its a god damn power play.
An army marches on its stomach.
Main thing that keeps me from fitting in in England is how much I love the French. 🇫🇷
We luv you too m8
I love the French because every other country I have been to besides France where I have attempted to speak the language, people are super appreciative of my efforts, even if I'm shit.
Not so in France. There's often an air of arrogant expectation, because making an effort to speak French isn't considered going above and beyond, but is expected (and if your French is mediocre, then you are not meeting that expectation). This isn't always as abrasive as I make it sound here, but it is a sharp contrast to my experience in other countries.
I weirdly like this though. It's a reflection of how British people travel about the world with a default assumption that many people will speak English. I have a Norwegian friend, for example, who said that when he was travelling, he was grateful that he knew English, because there would often be some people who could speak at least some English in most places he went. Attempting to speak French in France reminds me of how much privilege I have when travelling, because the French are as stubborn about expecting people to speak French as the English are about English. But the French are mainly like this within France, whereas English folk carry their expectations everywhere with them.
France feels like our sibling — we have a tumultuous relationship that could easily give the impression that we hate each other, but it's far deeper than that. One of my interests is fashion history, and it's so funny how many instances there are of a trend originating in France that people in Britain take notice of and want to emulate — in part because it is French: trends that are developing in a different cultural context, and are thus exotic and interesting compared to British fashion. Sometimes there'll be attempts to stop trends from crossing the channel, but that just makes them seem cooler. If you want an example of one such trend, this video from Abby Cox is great.
But the cultural exchange happened in the other direction too; sometimes a trend would start in Britain and slowly diffuse over to France. Stuff like this is why I see the French as being our family. For better or for worse, we are joined together by history.
French language is the original lingua franca, it's no wonder that if you admit that you don't speak well yet, they will simply ask "Why not?" It's probably not as far as we'd expect from the hauteur of English-speaking tourists, we just get our way more often I think. When I took my family to Paris last year I expected to get some of that high-handed treatment, but even out as far as Calais they were almost unfailingly forgiving of my decidedly mediocre attempts. I hope to go back soon, armed with a little more of the language.
Exactly! That's why I find it so refreshing.
In Holland everyone would switch to English immediately after I butchered the greeting in Dutch.
It made it super hard to learn the language
What's funny that if you're a French Canadian, you spend most of your life resentful that English is everywhere. Quebec has laws doing everything possible to try to prevent English from becoming a major language in Quebec. But, as soon as someone from Quebec goes travelling, they're probably grateful that they know English because it's the common language of the world these days.
I grew up primarily speaking English. But, I don't think I'm too arrogant about expecting everyone else to speak it. I'm always pleasantly surprised when there are signs in English in places where there can't be that many tourists.
What I did kind-of take for granted wasn't necessarily English, but it was the Roman character set. When I went travelling in East Asia, I came across Thai script, Korean, Japanese and Chinese. Previously when I'd travelled in other places, if I didn't know the language, I at least knew the letters. So, I might not have known how to pronounce the name of a place, but I could still read it and match it to the place I was looking for. But, when I was in Japan, I had to try to remember that the stop I wanted was the one where the first symbol sort of looked like a box with some scribbles inside and a lid on top, then the next one looked like a T but with two bars at the top instead of one.
I learned a little Japanese in high school, and it's a surprisingly easy alphabet to pick up... The actual language is another matter!
Hiragana and Katakana aren't too hard, but Kanji is another matter, and Kanji is used a lot in the names of mass transit stations, for example.
Do French protests always follow tram tracks? Otherwise, it seems like you could just use normal wheels.
If I just saw the picture and I knew it was a protest, I'd have figured that these people work for the tram and are protesting the tram company.
They don’t specifically follow the tram tracks, but in major European cities, tram tracks are simply everywhere. As the route of the protest has to be registered in advance, it’s very easy to plan for this.
With standard wheels on the barbecue, it would be far too bumpy to barbecue properly. And the risk of everything tipping over is 100 times greater.
I think it’s a brilliant solution.
Wow, that's dystopic. Very "you protest because I allow it" vibes. Nice for emergency services though
It's not dystopian, just democratic. Any democratic constitution reserves a very universal right to protest. You still have to notify the police beforehand so that they can reroute traffic. Of course the police also ensure that the protest doesn't turn violent, but first and for all they provide for the safety of the protesters.
Lol you can definitely tell you're European XD
The police here in the US are nothing like that. If you call the police to let them know you'll be protesting you're just asking for trouble, it's like taunting them before trying to fight them. I wouldn't be surprised if they show up at your house to harass you, or somehow set it up to where your planned protesting spot is either unavailable or otherwise impossible to use. They've been known to arrest people for giving water to the homeless, those waiting in line to vote, protestors, and pretty much anyone the government or specific officers dislike. It's commonly stated here in the US that short of a murder occuring, there is no good reason to call the police unless you want a murder to occur.
If you are wealthy in the US then calling the police is a positive because they actually do what you want and ignore all the petty shit they normally make a big deal out of. It all comes down to money and influence.
Registering a protest in advance is standard practice in the US and Canada, too. Cities can and do enforce basic rules for crowd control, rerouting traffic, etc. For example, you might be allowed to organize a protest in a public park during daylight hours, but if you do it at 2am in the streets of a residential area the cops are going to arrive and shut you down.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-guide-protests/
https://theccf.ca/learn/know-your-rights/
Normal wheels would be much heavier to push. Steel wheel on steel rail is basically zero effort, you just have to plan your protest accordingly^^
Are their tram rails powered? If they are, it could be using that power to cook while moving. I assume they aren't, at least not the rails but maybe overhead power, but it would be cool.
Tram lines are not powered, that would be a huge safety hazard. Most tram systems use power lines that run above the tracks.
In some places they are powered. It's generally much more expensive to do safely so it's only done in historic places where overhead wires would ruin the place.
I know It's the case in the centre of Reims for example.
And is some more eastern countries (like mine) would make it to easy to steal electricity ;]
They are not powered.
The French have been refining protesting since 1790.
Yeah, but it just hasnt been as good since "Kill'em all".
Let them eat sausage.
Aspirational goals. Canada did not pick up enough Francais.
We have a whole Quebec political party that's about not voting for federal elections... Want to protest against the libs or the cons? Vote for the Block!
As an Ontarian I appreciate the BQ. All I'm saying is Quebecois don't burn nearly as much shit as the French. And the rets of us aren't doing anything. Having a less capital-compliant part of Canada would be good for all of us.
So glad to come to the comments and not find this debunked
I wonder how the terroir affects the barbecue
And yet i've never seen a french protest where they had decent sound system. Not that important when the goal is to make noise, but they sure got their priorities
If you’re gonna protest, might as well eat good while doing it.
But is it Standard-gauge?
Yes, actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramways_in_%C3%8Ele-de-France
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-%C3%89tienne_tramway there is at least one tram network in France with 1000 mm gauge, so maybe they have grills for that gauge there too?
This comment prompted me to check the gauge of my city's streetcar, and I am happy to report that it is standard gauge as well. Too bad it only goes down two streets so it's relatively unlikely that a protest would march along it.
(I kinda need a new barbecue anyway, so it's still a design criterion to keep in mind, just in case.)
Easily the most genius thing I have seen in my entire life.
The real reason they got rid of trams in this country
If I can have a sausage sizzle as I'm protesting, I would go out more often.
::: spoiler StoryTime
I once got called out to protest for 'personal freedoms'. They didn't explain much further. I get there and its full on anti vaxx. They want their freedom to work without a vaccine. Wish I had the balls to walk away, but I stood there for an hour or 2. (Oh yeah. I'm in Australia, but the guy who invited me posted sympathy for Charlie Kirk. So I'm glad we not talking anymore)
Will never forget that fireman, who probably come back from saving someone's life (or at least, coming back from saving someone's property) giving a thumbs down to the protest.
100%, it wasn't at me directaly, but now 4-5 years on, I still remember him.
::: spoiler can I do a story time WITHIN a story time?
Whenever Violet08 posts, there will be a tonne of comments along the lines of "oh. This account again".am I recognised here too? I always post a lot after a few drinks, so maybe 1-2 people will recognise a spam post, look up and see 'oh. Midsized is drinking again'
::: :::
You don’t ask NSFW questions while posing as an 18yo girl, a bit less memorable
But now you are tagged and I shall remember you
Centrists?
Whenever the French are protesting something they all seem to end up setting their own cars on fire.
"I'm unhappy about the retirement age being raised by one year, here let me set the fire to this random persons fiat, that will show the government"
Whenever the governments of the US and Canada do anything we can’t even be fucked to do much of anything, so I think shutting the hell up and letting the French do what they do is probably better than trying to mock them for at least trying.
Yeah but we burn the richs' restaurants too.
Do those actually achieve anything? The biggest protests I heard about where the ones against pensions reform and this reform was only delayed when the ruling party failed to form the government several times. It was result of typical politics, not protests.
What I see happening over and over in Spain is:
No protests, no grilling on the tram rails. Just negotiating and using legal leverage. Last one was railway strikes after series of accidents. They reached an agreement before the strike. Unions called it "historic" and won better investment in maintenance and personnel.
So, do the French protest actually achieve anything or does it only look nice in memes? Can someone give some examples of what they won recently?
Protests and labor strikes increase the leverage workers have when negotiating for better compensation. There is no leverage if there is no protest.
One of my favorite examples was a mutiny during WWI where they were fed up with charging to their deaths. The tangible results were the commander got sacked and they didn't have to charge to their death.
Yes, I even gave concrete example of how rail workers in Spain used this leverage recently.
I'm asking for concrete examples from France. What did they achieve recently? WWI is not recently.
How about the gilets jaunes protests? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
The french, specifically, have a long tradition of putting their foot down and refusing to accept what their government is doing. I don't have specific links discussing it, but I know that occasionally entire major motorways will be shut down because farmers or lorry drivers have blocked them with heavy industrial machines, and they stay that way until those people decide to move. I also know that there's an entire region (Brittany) where the motorways aren't toll roads, unlike the rest of France, because every time they try the cameras and toll booths get destroyed.
Originally, the yellow vests protested because of an increase onfuel tax, to finance environmental measures. They got that tax increase to be halted. Also, agricultors regularly protest and get the reintroduction of harmful pesticides. Basically, the only trade-off the government is ready to accept is giving up on ecological progress.
Yes, but what did they achieve? I know about the protests. The wiki article you linked doesn't mention any gains.
"Participation in the weekly protests diminished and eventually ended entirely due to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, although minor protests continued after health restrictions were lifted."
Those were mainly Macron opponents protesting and demanding his resignation. He didn't resign. They had some other demands but the article doesn't mention if any of them were realized by the government.
So yes, the protests looked nice in pictures but besides damaging some property, what did they achieve?
They successfully canceled a gas tax raise.
I think it was more of a delay than cancellation: https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/more-drivers-to-pay-higher-pollution-taxes-on-new-car-registrations-in-france/705889
Gas prices went up everywhere anyway. But yes, I guess that was some concession from the government so it's a good example.
You’ll have to look a decade in the past.
Under former presidents (Hollande, Sarko and Chirac) protests did work.
Now it’s only since Macron that they are less effective as he does not care unless everything is literally burning.
I don’t have examples in mind, I participated in some of them but I was younger and do not really remember the details.
35 hr work week has been maintained https://apnews.com/general-news-96d7f44de4e44f1ebdc7bf86f5e856e4
Edit: I'm not sure why I'm being upvoted. Yes, the "35-hour" protests were amazing, but turns out they did not win the thing they wanted. The law was fucked with in exactly the way that the government said it would fuck with it, and they pushed it through by force.
This law did pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Khomri_law
Very curious you claim that they maintained 35 hours work week while only posting a link about the protests. It's like people think that protesting something == getting something.
You seem to be right. I was wrong. I really thought they won that one!
The showing was amazing and inspiring, but if they didn't win the thing they were fighting for, then we need to learn a lesson from that too. Thanks for pushing back.
My example was the French Army. I didn't dig for modern sources for you because I only wanted to post the one I liked.
They achieve a lot less since Macron is in power. He "listen to the street" (to the unions actually) a lot less than its predecessors. The yellow jackets had to go very far, with a lot of victims, just to get a few concessions. Repression is a lot more fierce with a lot of police violence. This had the effect of discouraging a lot of people, protests are generally smaller lately. It makes some think that direct actions is the only way now but not much has happened.
To find national protests with real achievement you'll need to search before Macron. There were some local achievements lately though. And protest are not done alone, there are usually strikes, negotiations and legal leverages at the same time.
This picture is actually from 2018 I think, so the beginning of Macron as president.
In some cases I think it does help to protest and take to the streets and not only strike. For example striking dock workers and metal factory workers is one thing. Having them march on the capital is another still... There's definitely overlap between these groups of workers and soccer hooligan groups for example. A large protest of certain groups imply the promise of non-state controlled violence if agreements aren't reached.
Other case is when the protests is just really really big. A few hundred thousand does work to get the message spread more clearly how 'willing' they are to keep striking. While striking and just sitting at home during strike sends rather mixed signals.
It also enforces the "we're in this together" in the workers.
It all sounds nice in theory but does it work in practice? I'm asking because I really don't know what the effects are in France. We see a lot of marching but what are the actual results? As I said, the biggest recent protests I heard about were those against pension reform and those didn't achieve anything. Did they the unions also strike to abolish this reform? From what you're saying the protests would indicate there was a will to strike and the "we're in this together" message was definitely there. The government didn't budge. Did it work in other cases?
One example where I know mass protests worked were coal miners protests in Poland. Any time the government tries to reform the unprofitable mines the mines go to Warsaw, block the streets, burn some tires, punch some politicians if needed and get what they want. This only serves the interest of this very small group and every one else loses. Other groups like teaches and nurses that don't want to punch politicians never get anything.
In Spain the government is way more scared of big scale disruption over long period of time that one time traffic problems in the capital. You limit the railway network capacity to 60% (legally you can't limit it more) over couple of days and the whole country feels the pain. You organize a protest in the capital and one city suffers for couple of hours. I wonder how does this compare to France. Do they also strike? Do they achieve anything?
I'm not very familiar with situations in every country ;) A bit in Belgium and Germany. In Belgium it is like the Polish miners: if certain groups are involved, I think the effect is felt in agreements in the end. But that is still what is needed after all: agreements. No union wants to strike forever, there is money to be made after all, striking is expensive for the workers (which is a main reason unions exist at all). Workers and owners share similar goals, don't forget: work, make money, be wealthy. Strikers generally aren't disputing that, all they are disputing is how much % of the wealth goes to whom.
If the Metallurgy takes to the street, politicians are scared. If farmers/truckers block highways, politicians are scared. If dockers go to Brussels, they bring fireworks (also literally), politicians are for sure scared of them. These do happen to be some of the best paid 'low education' jobs. Is it a coincidence?
The magic is, and it happens rather rare indeed, that all of them strike together, you need the dockers supporting the nurses etc. Unfortunately I think the battle against the pension age is lost everywhere. The EU serves as a divider by the way: we're always told we need to earn less of pension later or ... because "all our neigbouring countries are more competitive in this field!". Then you tune in to the media in the neighbouring countries: it's the same fairytale. The capital succeeded in dividing the workers across Europe, unions across EU-inner-borders extremely rarely join forces, and it has become a major weakness of the unions in EU today.
In my experience the general public transport strikes do more bad than good to the workers, for sure in the long run. These strikes are just way to common, general opinion outside the profession is that they are already generously treated for pensions, holidays, etc.
Then there are a few groups of workers... they barely have to announce a strike and they'll get what they want. One group is the train drivers (not all public transport, just the drivers). Another are the maritime pilots. If these strike, nothing moves. All ships/trains are blocked and the entire economy bleeds like crazy immediately.
But no, I can't provide you with any concrete evidence of protests actually having forced a better deal than if no protest would have been held. It's a gut feeling i guess. I don't think there has been a lot of A/B testing on this, tricky to organize ;) And between countries cultures and striking traditions are just a tad too different to be able to compare it easily.
I don't expect you to know the situation in France. I was hoping someone from France will answer that :)
I agree with you 100% on the rest. This is what it looks like in most countries. Some groups have bigger leverage and win confrontations easily, other groups never win. Some groups protests to get something, other groups don't have to.
I'm just wondering why Internet is promoting France as some masters of protesting. As you said, people also protest and strike in Belgium and Germany and get things done. I see news about mass protests in France but not much news about deals being made. Friend that worked in France for some time claimed that they simply irrationally oppose any changes, even small improvements and eventually nothing gets ever done. From my visits to France I have a picture of a country where everyone is frustrated that nothing works. If you look at some actual data like actual hours worked, paid holidays or maternity leave France is doing OK but not better than other countries. So I'm absolutely not saying that protests and strikes don't work. I'm asking if they work in France? Are they actually good at getting concessions from the government or do they just march a lot?