Talk:Freedom fries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Historical parallels

This whole section ought to be pulled out and worked into [Category:Political neologisms] somehow, to maximize xref potential and relevance. --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War I Reference

The article is fine except for this:

Prior to World War I, Americans widely referred to french toast as German toast. This food, too, was briefly renamed "freedom toast."

I have not been able to find a well-documented source for either claim - just many dozens of webpages repeating the same unattributed source. The only documented use of "German toast" known to me is the 1918 Fannie Farmer Cookbook, which does not qualify as an attestation of widespread use, since it uses strange names for other standard recipes as well. Besides, this etymology contradicts the claims made on the French toast entry. I can't find any reference to "freedom toast" at all before the recent unpleasantness.

I'm going to remove the reference and make the source explicit on the French toast page. Anybody with additional documentation should revert the edits.

Diderot

Hi. I was just reading this article, and I noticed an omission: the article compares the anti-French sentiment that led to the "renaming" of French Fries to "freedom fries" for a while with the anti-German sentiment from as early as World War I. But the article seems to overlook one fundamental detail: when the anti-German sentiment rose, the US was at war with Germany, bullets were flying, people were dying, and it's only natural for such a sentiment to rise on both sides (surely Germans weren't that fond of the US back then); in the "fries incident" the situation was quite different, France was never at war with the US, there was never even any risk of severing diplomatic relations. In light of that, the causes leading to this "renaming" appear somewhat "petty", since we read in the article that it all began with some politicians (are those guys getting re-elected??) who apparently time-traveled back to middle school and got angry when some others wouldn't share their opinion (or do as they were told, depending on the point of view). And this regretable behavior was, most unfortunately, mimicked by quite a few people in the US. Now, I'm not saying that the article should call US congressmen "children" or anything (that's a NPOV red flag for sure), but it definitely ought to be more specific about this fundamental difference between the anti-German and the anti-French sentiments: one was justified by conjuncture, the other was just plain petty (although we might try to find a way to sugarcoat it a little when writting it into the article), and although the article does explain the origins of the quid-pro-quo, it never differentiates the two directly, and most people will not make this distinction I've just explained. Regards, Redux 01:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it is ok—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.136.71 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 January 2006.

What is ok?--JK the unwise 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viewpoints on Iraq

Hi Anthere.

You added this to the article:

Throughout the international debates regarding the Iraq disarmament crisis, France maintained opposition to the invasion of Iraq planned by the United States, claimed weapons of mass destruction destruction issue could be solved through inspections and diplomacy, and insisted the weapons issue was merely an attempt to hide american desire to size oil wells and to force democracy upon an unwilling country.

My initial reaction to seeing this French viewpoint spelled out is that it should be balanced with the American viewpoint. This could, of course, lead us to needing to include (for example) the British and German and Iraqi viewpoints as well. Before you know it, the "Freedom Fries" article simply becomes yet another restating of the entire debate around Iraq, which we already cover elsewhere. Can we simply back the specific political claims out of this article and link to them instead of rehashing them here? -º¡º

I tend to agree. But I added this paragraph because the previous sentence, in particular after modification by Stevenj was unacceptable
for memory Throughout the international debates regarding the Iraq disarmament crisis, France maintained a vociferous opposition to the United States.
First, vociferous is not an acceptable terminology. Second, for memory, the opposition was about invasion in Iraq, not opposition to United States. Again, this wording was not acceptable. --Unsigned comment by Anthere on 2003-04-21 16:47:35
I edited the statement to be similar to what it was like before Stevenj changed it. Maybe it is ok like this? -º¡º

What I also find a bit risky is the way the article implies that the anti-war sentiment was purely French:

In the international debate over the decision to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq, France expressed strong opposition in the United Nations to taking such action. The French position was not popular among conservatives in the United States, leading some Republicans to campaign for the boycotting of French goods and businesses and the removal of the country's name from products.

The French government wasn't the only group of people strongly opposed to the position of the US government. From what I gather, the international pro/anti war balance has been portrayed differently in the US from how it was portrayed throughout most of Europe (including countries which were not officially "anti-war").

The war itself, and its premises, remain controversial -- both inside and outside the US. The wording on that introduction makes it sound as if France was the only vocal opposition the US had. In the German press, for example, the French position was not given any unique significance as other governments' officials were already criticising the invasion (including Germany, Canada, et al.). Whether or not the French were picked as a handy scapegoat can be left as an exercise to the reader, but fact is, despite the way the whole affair was depicted in American media, French was not particularily significant.

I'd propose a wording along the lines of the following:

In the international debate over the decision to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the French government expressed strong opposition in the United Nations to taking such action. The position held by France was not popular among conservatives in the United States, leading some Republicans to campaign for the boycotting of French goods and businesses and the removal of the country's name from products.

I can't find a decent way to add the notion that they were not alone in their views without boiling some of it down to weasel words, but changing it from France to the French government (because I think that's more specific) and from the French position to the position held by France (which removes the implication that the position was ONLY held by France, or was particularily French per se) should remove at least some of the implications stated above.

(Ironically, several months after the German media joined the anti-US bandwagon, they reported on the American-German political relationships being improved by government officials on both sides and put it in a way that made it sound as if the German government would be apologising to the US for having an opposed position in the Iraq affair. Now, that's professional journalism for you. Fair and balanced, eh?) — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities

I'd be a bit happier with the following paragraph if we could get some cites:

The word play is reminiscent of anti-German sentiment during the First World War in which sauerkraut was renamed liberty cabbage, and hamburgers were transformed into liberty steaks. (Even the German measles got a new name: liberty measles.) This similarity is intentional: Rowland described a conversation about these renamed foods during World War I as the inspiration for "freedom fries."

and

Previous attempts to rename food during wartime have been largely unsuccessful, with one notable exception being the change of frankfurter to hot dog during World War II...

The problem is that these paragraph are just a slight rewrite of Neal Rowland's statement to CNN [1], and so is pretty well every other web reference. Two other claims — that the North Sea was renamed from the "German Sea", and that French toast was renamed from "German toast" — have already been demonstrated to be false and have been removed, although these did not appear to originate with Rowlands.

Now it's clear that some things were renamed due to anti-German sentiment (especially place names), but I wonder if people have gotten that idea into their heads and been carried away with some folk etymology. Let's look at the some of Rowlands' claims:

  • "frankfurters" → "hot dogs". The most widely reported etymology (e.g. Douglas Smith, "Ever wonder why?") claims that the name "hot dog" was coined in 1901 by cartoonist T. A. Dorgan, and previously they were usually called "wienies" or "dachshund sausages". (Dorgan also coined many other American slang terms.) However there is also evidence they were referred to simply as "dogs" in slang long before that. Vendors' carts existed since the 1880s, and were widely called "dog wagons" by the 1890s. A student fraternity poem penned in 1895 specifically refers to them as "dogs". And it is obviously no great stretch to add the adjective "hot" to something that is served hot. Finally, when we do find reference to "frankfurters" around that time, it is almost invariably abbreviated to "franks". So, unless someone can find evidence of an actual campaign to suppress "frankfurter" as a name, I would like this claim to be referred to as a "widely held belief" rather than a fact, or else removed.
  • "sauerkraut" → "liberty cabbage". This seems to be true [2], although it's not clear how widely it was actually practiced [3].
  • "hamburgers" → "liberty steaks" ("liberty sandwich" in some variants). Problem: there are many distinct claims for the origin of the foodstuff now known as the "hamburger". Originally, the term was "Hamburger steak" and referred to the ground beef patty. This dates back to at least the mid-nineteenth century and probably earlier. Commercial vendors of sandwiches incorporating hamburger patties started appearing in the US in the 1880s, at the time using sliced bread rather than buns. However the "hamburger sandwich" as we know it today did not appear until 1916 - after World War I had already started. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a name change but it does make one wonder. Can anyone find a more detailed cite? Another variant of this one - "Salisbury steak" - is even less plausible since Salisbury steak isn't the same as a hamburger, and Dr. Salisbury (who invented it) died in 1905.
  • "German measles" → "liberty measles". Now come on! How can we include such a patently unlikely claim without cross-checking it!? Why would anyone name a disease "liberty"? If they wanted to malign the Germans you would think they would name more diseases for them. And in any case a far more sensible alternative name already existed; the name "rubella" is far older than "German measles". The only supporting evidence I can find on-line (as against bloggers endlessly quoting each other) is this German-American heritage page which claims one doctor did it.

-- Securiger 16:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Childish affairs

This whole affair is SO childish that well it's difficult to avoid laughing.

But there are people like this right across the world, the pity is in the USA they've got power.

But this just shows that people, even when being officially ADULTS, are not MATURE. This is so puerile, so stupid, that the very fact of spending even 10 cents on changing a menu is just... well a token of mental retardation. --80.58.9.107 14:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the whole freedom fries thing is a perfect example of how stupid Americans have become since Bush took power --Unsigned comment by 62.56.54.143 on 2005-08-12 19:17:12
While this is stupid, so is blaming Bush for someone elses stupidity. Please grow up.--ᎠᏢ462090 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the parent. I just want to let everyone around the world know that I am completely embarassed that there are people in my country who do things like this. It's horribly stupid. --mdd4696 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of impositions

If the American governement wants to impose the use of "fredom fries" instead of "french fries" to punish France for not accepting being its slave, that's their problem... Us, we don't care, "french fries" are not called "french" anywhere else in the world. They are not even from France but from Belgium... --Unsigned comment by 82.224.59.166 on 2005-01-23 20:41:04

As an American citizen, I implore you and the rest of the world not to judge us based on the actions of George Bush and his idiot brethren. He actually lost the popular vote when he was originally elected, but because of our corrupted electoral system he became president anyways. His approval rating among American citizens is at 40% right now and Bob Ney went down on corruption charges. When we were attacked on September 11th Bush took advantage of the situation and ran with it, whipping up patriotism with dogmatic rhetoric and leading us down a path that it's going to take us a long time to backtrack out of. So please, don't judge us to be like George Bush, because some of us aren't. And the ones that are, their party is on the way out. Spazik007 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point out the obvious

Well um, I'm late to this story, but if we rename Freedom Fries, and Freedom Toast, then as a logical conclusion, the Bush administration is opposed to policies of the Freedom Republic. That's an oops! *Ahem*. Anyway, um, just pointing that out. Kim Bruning 23:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deft touch

You have a deft touch, Karada. Tannin 10:52, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] french fries....?

Do any of you know what the percentage of people in Illinois like french fries? thanks! --Unsigned comment by 12.217.0.195 on 2004-11-12 02:14:46

No stats are taken on such trivial subjects... -- user:zanimum
Hah! You'd be surprised. I'm pretty sure that some stats along those lines are available somewhere. Not neccessarily for Illinois or french fries, but given the kind of stuff "market researchers" are paid for, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of such stats existing. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frenched fries

Has it yet been pointed out that the term "french" in french fries has nothing to do with the nation of France? It is merely an abbreviated form of "frenched", meaning thinly sliced.

What evidence do you have for it? See French fries and Talk:French fries for more speculation and discussion. --Macrakis 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
From The Straight Dope ([4]): "By the way, the verb "to french" in cooking has come to mean to cut in long, slender strips, and some people insist that "french fries" come from that term. However, the French fried potato was known since the middle 1800s, while the OED cites the first use of the verb "to french" around 1895, so it appears pretty convincing that "french fried potatoes" came before the verb "frenching." The origin of the name is thus the country of origin French and not the cooking term french." --Kvaks 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I call BS on that. the term there would be julienne. We even have a fry cut, aka, a batonet. This coming from a person who knows Culinary terms (since that's my major...). "to french" Doesn't apply in this case.Luca 8:20, 24 February 2006 (EST)


[edit] Rolled back this change...ok?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_fries&diff=43591361&oldid=43590848 To me the revision smacked much more strongly of POV

I think that change has been added by anons and reverted a number of times. It's clearly POV, and somewhat useless. You did the right thing. Makemi 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I would favor a merger of viewpoints in order to peacefully resolve the Edit Wars currently under way.

-Thank you,


Another Point of View —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.7.23.172 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I have requested semi-protection here. TacoDeposit 21:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This article lacks a fair and balanced viewpoint

Here is a more DIVERSE point of view:

FREEDOM FRIES

Freedom fries are successful symbols of U.S. unity and resolve in the face of highly adversarial, antagonistic French policies and provocations. These enduring symbols of American resistance to hostile, anti-American French policies were first popularized by courageous U.S. Congressman Robert W. Ney and Walter B. Jones in 2003.

Freedom Fries were a symbolic change that was highly effective and took hold in a meaningful way. The direct effect was to galvanize U.S. public opinion of and highten awareness to hostile French behavior and anti-American provocations. The adversarial French nation and its people continue to provoke America and provide the U.S. government and military leaders with a cause of action justifying any and all options in dealing with the French.

Freedom Fries marked a turning point in the obsolete trans-Atlantic Alliance and signaled a strategic re-alignment of pro-Western nations that no longer included France.

If that's a fair and balanced viewpoint, I'm a 37-foot-tall alien hamster from the planet $#!%é. 64.12.116.65 00:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Totally POV --Danielrocks123 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from the US, and I'm utterly fascinated by this point of view. Would someone, even someone who doesn't agree with the above post, give me an example of "hostile French behavior"? I watch the news and read the papers and saw no mention of French warships off the American coast, France pointing missiles at New York or supplying weapons to America's enemies.

All I saw was France not supporting the US invasion of Iraq, around a year after it had whole-heartedly supported and joined in the US-led NATO operations in Afghanistan. Is this viewpoint essentially that any country which doesn't loudly support every aspect deserves to be bombed- even when its troops were still engaged as allies in a US-led operation?

Also, why were Robert W. Ney and Walter B. Jones "courageous"? Declaring war on French Fries is hardly a high risk activity: unless you're worried people will think you're an idiot- and these men obviously weren't.


[edit] The Congressional renaming

On March 11, 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R - Ohio) and Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R - North Carolina) declared that all references to "French fries" and "French toast" on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to re-name French fries as "freedom fries". This action was carried out without a congressional vote, under the authority of Congressman Ney's position as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees restaurant operations in the house. The simultaneous renaming of French toast to "freedom toast" attracted less attention. [5]

According to a statement released by Ney, this move was a symbolic effort to express displeasure with France's "continued refusal to stand with their U.S. allies" (see Iraq disarmament crisis). The statement further read: "This action today is a small, but symbolic, effort to show the strong displeasure many on Capitol Hill have with our so-called ally, France."

This feeling was spread through the Internet, chain e-mails and constant 24-hour news coverage from stations like CNN and Fox News.

Congressmen Ney and Jones, however, were not the first to re-name French fries as freedom fries. A number of private restaurants across the country started the renaming movement. Neal Rowland, owner of the privately owned fast-food restaurant Cubbie's in Beaufort, North Carolina, decided to sell his fried potato strips under the name "freedom fries." Rowland claimed that his intent was not to slight the French people, but to be patriotic and support President George W. Bush. Many of Rowland's customers were among the local military troops.

'Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierté le French kiss!

(Let's eat French fries, but above all let's French kiss with pride!)
-Anti-war protest organizer, Montreal (15 March 2003)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.199.87 (talkcontribs). 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What a bloody joke.

[edit] Fair and balanced? Please...

Quote

"Here is a more DIVERSE point of view:

FREEDOM FRIES

Freedom fries are successful symbols of U.S. unity and resolve in the face of highly adversarial, antagonistic French policies and provocations. These enduring symbols of American resistance to hostile, anti-American French policies were first popularized by courageous U.S. Congressman Robert W. Ney and Walter B. Jones in 2003.

Freedom Fries were a symbolic change that was highly effective and took hold in a meaningful way. The direct effect was to galvanize U.S. public opinion of and highten awareness to hostile French behavior and anti-American provocations. The adversarial French nation and its people continue to provoke America and provide the U.S. government and military leaders with a cause of action justifying any and all options in dealing with the French.

Freedom Fries marked a turning point in the obsolete trans-Atlantic Alliance and signaled a strategic re-alignment of pro-Western nations that no longer included France."

Pfft... Diverse my ass...

AllStarZ 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the renaming of cities portion

Too much of a tangent from the original topic. Joncnunn 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chips

I took out the word inferior from "some new zealanders use the inferior british term chips."

[edit] Why does this article exist?

--Macarion 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it? Nadim Scolris 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)