The culture clash between France and the USA can be so strong sometimes... But on such essential, dangerous, “hot topics” that it becomes sometimes very difficult.
Take the word “race” for example. The USA has a very neutral, desensitized, common use of the word “race”. The USA made race a widespread word, not just of racism or science, but also of pride and of every day talks. It doesn’t surprise anyone to have surveys asking you your race. It isn’t shocking anyone to hear about “racial tensions” or “racial conflicts” in the USA today. But if in France you start speaking of “race” you come off as massively racist, because race never lost its scientific meaning of “a different species”, nor its racist meaning of “another type of human being”. Which is why I am a bit uncomfortable using “race” in my posts, even though the word is now neutral in the US-English. In France we speak of things such as descent or ethnicity or communities - but not “race”.
The USA’s very different approach to ethnicity, historical descent and nationalities compared to France was perfectly illustrated by a famous incident (that I keep reusing myself as an example over and over, but that’s because of how telling it is). [Note: While I thought the man involved in this story was purely American, I just discovered today he was born and raised in South Africa, so the example isn’t perfect - but it is telling]. After France won the 2018 World Cup (FIFA of course), Trevor Noah celebrated how “Africa won the World Cup”, since most of the French team was made of black men. Problem, the French footballers immediately took offense to that and answered back that no, they were French, thank you very much. You see, from the “American” point of view here (and I don’t know much about South Africa I admit, so I’ll leave it aside), it is normal to have this sort of “bi-nationality” or “bi-racial” recognition as “Afro-American”. For the Black community of the USA, it is a question of allying their Americaness with their African origins to be “whole”. So Black Americans tend to refer to themselves as “African” commonly and pretty proudly. But in France? Oh boy, no. In France, only massive racists call Black French people “African”. Well not exclusively but here’s the problem: African-originated immigrants (or even just Black people that happened to be born French) had to fight for a very long time to be recognized as “French citizens”, or as “French” short. In France it is still a logic implanted in the far-right and other racist movements that if you have non-French origins, you will never be French, and that black people do not “belong” in France but in Africa. It took a long time for people to stop considering Black French men and Black French women actually “French” before all, French before their skin color, and black doctors, black artists, black politicians had to fight to have their full Frenchness recognized (especially since most of them were born, lived and raised in France).
So, Trevor Noah’s comment came of to the French sportsmen as massively racist and denying them French status, while Noah thought the French footballers were basically denying or rejecting the origins of their parents or grandparents...
Another big culture clash that happens between the USA and France - and which results in the USA calling often French with all sorts of “phobe” adjectives - is religion. Oh boys and girls and other critters... Americans, with their melting-pot culture, their deeply Christian history (and their very weird take on Christianity as a whole), their multiculturalism and their acceptance, tolerance and embrace of all religions, have established a mindset and a model which makes it hard for them to grasp one of the basis modern France was built over: laicity. Laicity is one of the main principles and laws of France, one of the key ideas the modern Republic and nation was built over, and it is something we try to teach each children - and recently the absence or failure of laicity in our society is causing all sorts of debate and threats. But what is laicity you might ask?
Laicity, French-flavor, is simple. There is an acceptance and a tolerance of all sorts of all sorts of religion in France, a bit like how in the USA you can have any religion you want - BUT to ensure that this equality and acceptance of all religions exists, France makes sure that no religion is above another by all relegating them to the background and ensuring there is no religion of state. So what does it mean exactly? It mean you can have any religion you want and practice any cult you want, AS LONG as it stays a personal, private matter. You can cover your house in religious symbols, you can walk down the street in religious outfits, these are your personal choices and no law can prevent you from belonging to a religion or showing you belong to this religion. Except if it is a truly mad endangering sectarian cult, or if you’re a terrorist... and EXCEPT if you are in a public position or a representant of the state. France, by the principal of laicity, is not a state or nation that has a religion. It means all those that represent it, serve it and embody it should not have any religion. France is supposed to be religion-neutral.
In details, it means that no minister, no member of the government, no president can actively enforce or promote any religion, and cannot wear any religious symbol or outfit. Same thing with the police, which is the servant of the state and the enforcers of its law - policemen are not supposed to carry religious symbols or profess publically their religion. And same thing with public schools, public libraries and other public institutions directly funded, overseen and organized by the state or the government. The principle of laicity is that all religions are the same because they are, in theory, belonging to personal choices and personal life. But religion is not supposed to be a “public” thing, and so if you enter the state/government, or are supposed to represent it as a bureaucrat or agent, you are meant to erase all of your personal choices, all of your personal preferences, to represent the religious neutrality of the state - a state supposed to protect, defend and respect all religions by not choosing one, not taking one above the other, and not taking any part among the religious conflicts.
Now, this is in theory. Again, this is the principle France was built over. And for Americans, this principle can lead to a lot of misunderstandings. For example today in France we discuss, with the rise of Islam-oriented terrorist threats and Islam-fanaticism, in front of rises of anti-Christian, antisemitic and anti-French manifestations, there is a lot of debates about the problem of Muslim communitarism, extremism and “overlap”. It is has been attested, certified and confirmed that a lot of Muslim youth today live in much more isolated and fanatical Muslim communities or families than before, and that a good chunk of them answer proudly that they consider that the law of the Coran is above the law of France. And for us this is a problem, because the model of the French citizenship and of France as a whole is the reverse - the law and principles of France as a nation go first, religious laws go second because they are of the private domain. This is also why for example teachers in public school or police officers are forbidden and criticized for wearing signs of appartenance to the Muslim religion, like a hijab. This is not “islamophobia” or “Muslim-hate” as Americans like to say (though I do not deny there’s a lot of far-right groups that are islamophobes and use this in their rhetoric). But originally it is rather a defence of laicity.
And here’s the thing with laicity: it applies to all religions. Islam is currently under the fire due to its active terrorist threats and communitarism, but the same laws and critics apply to Jewish or Christian people. For example, this is one of the reasons extreme-right groups are criticized, rejected or disqualified from politics, when they break the principle of laicity by trying to actively promote Christianity and reject or forbid any other religion. Because this is against the and against the principles of the Republic. Of course, France will always have a bias for Christianity because France is a deeply Christian country that built itself over Christianity and still has a lot of Christian elements in its culture - but the thing is that what modern France is supposed to be is a nation that has Christianity as part of its culture, but not as part of its government, institutions or nation. It is a nuance that can be hard to understand - especially for Americans, because the USA have a quite crazy model, where their culture is a mixture of all sorts of diverse religions, and technically there’s a freedom of religion and all that, but their nation and government still is based on Christianity, with the President still taking an oath over the Bible. In fact this is something French people like to mock Americans about, when people of the USA criticize French for being somehow not progressive and open-minded enough in terms of religion, we like to throw them back that their president literaly takes an oath on the Christian Bible.
Anyway - as I said, Christianity doesn’t get any favor compared to Islam by the principle of laicity. This is why public schools teach nothing about Christianity outside of historical facts, and maybe a “religion class” which is obliged to cover all religions, dead or alive, not just Christianity. This is also why today there is a true “loss” of Christian culture in France because a good chunk of French citizens and youth are non-religious and so have no clue what some concepts of Christianity are. It seems that Christianity gets “favored”, but that’s just because it is part of the old French culture, but in terms of laicity, it isn’t supposed and shouldn’t and most of the time doesn’t have favors. There are religious schools yes, Christian schools, and Jewish schools and Muslim schools - but they are “private schools”, surviving on their own fundings, and not public schools depending from and organized by the state.
This is why for example as a French boy, I was deeply surprised and a bit shocked to see in British-influenced media policemen openly wearing things such as crosses or hijabs - because it cannot be done in France. One last fact about laicity: the fact Christianity doesn’t get any favor is especially prominent when you consider that laicity in France was created in the first place to cut off Christianity. Laicity is an inheritance of the French Revolution, whose purpose wasn’t just to destroy the monarchy to create a democracy, but specifically to destroy an absolutism of divine right. High members of the Christian Church and French nobility were the same, the monarch was the “first defender of Christianity”, we had taxes for both the state and the Church... and so the French Revolution created an absolutely non-religious democracy, removing all religious days like Christmas or Easter, renaming all towns and buildings that had a too-religious name, and making sure to kill, steal from and burn as many Christian monasteries, churches and members of the Church they could find. This was reinforced by a date every French kid learns at school: La séparation de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, The Separation of Church and the State, 1905, which was THE political decision still followed today by modern France to make all religions equal by removing all publicness from religions and making it a definitively private and secondary business - and again this decision was mostly taken against Christianity.
