Talk:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys/Archive 1

Original Talk: discussion
I always assumed the phrase referred primarily to the speedy collapse of French military resistance at the start of WWII. Vichy seems plausible but surely not Napoleon (not a man to surrender lightly) or colonial disengagement (too obscure). Harry R 15:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if it has anything to do with French failures at Crecy or Agincourt.


 * I was happy to leave it at Vichy and worry it is turning into a Franch bashing page. Equally, as ABBA taught us, My my, at Waterloo, Napoleon did surrender. Oh Yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way. Ahem. So that's okay. --Tagishsimon


 * Better now? Also, if the episode doesn't mention the Battle of France, the final sentence of that paragraph is also unfounded and should be struck. JMD (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?

I mean, really, it's a stupid, throwaway joke from the Simpsons, and a cheap shot, too. And I discovered this page because it was linked from the front page of the site! When did it become cool to insult a whole nation by making an encyclopedia entry calling them monkeys, anyway? How long before you myopic, seemingly-retarded (and my fellow) Americans begin refering to African nations as "Starving genocide monkeys"? --Catblack 21:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * None of us will die for the lack of any of these pages. CESM had its fifteen minutes of fame - google for it to see how widespread it became - 10,200 hits. When did it become cool to insult a whole nation by making an encyclopedia entry calling them monkeys, anyway? It is not and you possibly miss the point entirely here. CESM happened. The encyclopedia is reporting that it happened, and putting it in context. It would be wrong to start a page which had no external reference - e.g. a page called Catblack misses the point; that would be to hijack the wikipedia for a POV attack with no basis. It is worlds apart from explaining the antecedents of a phrase with wipespread, though perhaps transitory, usage. Whoever put in on the front page presumably shares the view that it is well known enough to deserve an outing. --Tagishsimon

Catblack apparently doesn't mind insulting a whole nation by implying Americans are myopic and retarded. Also he/she/it doesn't realize that Wikipedia is international, not American, and Tagishsimon who started the page is apparently English, judging from his user page.


 * Or Scottish when the fancy takes me ;) --Tagishsimon

Catblack, we survive, no worry ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

I feel I must point out that this reference is, in fact, in error. The phrase in question comes from the episode “’Round Springfield” (2F32). The exact quote, in context, is as follows:

[cut to…]
 * Bart: [walking into nurse’s room] Lunch Lady Doris? Why are you here?
 * Doris: Budget cuts. They've even got Groundskeeper Willie teaching French.
 * Willie: Bonjourrrrrr, ya cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

The line in question refers to the students “learning” French from Willie, not the French themselves. It is not a criticism of the French. It is simply one of Groundskeeper Willie’s many oddly off-color statements. As a result, I find it incomprehensible that people in the U.S. and U.K. have used it as a rallying cry against the French. D.A.S., 22:11 EDT, 31 August 2006


 * I think you find it incomprehensible because you've gone too far with deconstructing the joke. Clearly the joke is at heart targeting the French, unless you really believe that there's some deep Vietnam reference in there (as why else would a Scotsman say it to some Americans?).  As for Catblack's comments: it became much more than a cheap throwaway joke from the Simpsons, thanks to the run up to the Iraq war.  Personally I just think it shows ignorance on the part of those who use it (and mean it) Bombot 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a droll phrase. This being the case it is comprehensible to me that someone had the wit to pick it up & run with it. That the target of the phrase has been subverted is the least you'd expect when choosing vocabulary for a scabrous attack on a nation which has pissed you off (UK) / at which you're pissed (US). --Tagishsimon (talk)

VfD Debate 16th May 2004
Raised and removed by Catblack.

'Gained common currency' implies that many people used it, that it became a common phrase. I don't think that is really true - it might have been used in a few shows as a gag, but to say that it was in common use? I don't think so. Is there some alternative phrase that you'd be happy with? Mark Richards 19:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'd never heard this phrase before, and it kinda surprised me that there was a page for it. I got shouted down, but hey, that-sa democracy for ya. And I mean it, I'd never heard this phrase before, and I don't think a page is really necessary. But then, the experience of sending VFD-wards was educational to me as to how the wiki works. (Or wonks as the case may be.)

But really, is there going to be a page for every joke on the Daily show, for example? I want my Giany Mess-O-Potamia! --Catblack 01:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If the joke has legs of its own, then yes, why not. Can you not tell the difference between a phrase that is picked up and used by many people to express a political opinion, and a phrase whch us not? You say you had never heard of the phrase before. Welcome to the encyclopedia ... it tends to be a collection of that sort of stuff. I'm unsure what information was missed out of the replies you got to a similar query on the 15th May, (above). Perhaps some sort of groundhog day thing going on? --Tagishsimon

Slogan?
Shouldn't this be prefixed with Slogan: ? {Ανάριον} 14:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? Should the Ford Ka be prefixed with Car:, or the article on bananas be prefixed with Fruit: ? You could at least make a case for your (to me, bizarre) suggestion. --Tagishsimon
 * Err... I am confused. I could've sworn that slogans were prefixed with Slogan: in the Wikipedia, but I now can't find any... never mind it. {Ανάριον} 15:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Besides which, albeit was used in a political context, I do not think it is a slogan, so much as an amusing insulting phrase. (well, amusig unless you are French, perhaps). --Tagishsimon

National Review
''The line was first picked up and used predominantly by Republican American politicians and publications. They were led, according to The Guardian, by Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for the right-wing weekly National Review.''

National Review is biweekly.


 * Noted. In the mean time, I believe that if the political characterization is going to be retained, then it would be appropriate to refer to The Guardian as a "left-wing daily". Ellsworth 21:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Left-of-centre, maybe. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * And that's the problem. Where the "center" is inherently depends on POV, which is why I propose to drop the references altogether. Which I will do now. Ellsworth 14:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good call. The Grauniad and National Review pages both adequately discuss the politics of each. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Let's see if it stands. Editors tend to get huffy about labelling or the lack thereof. Ellsworth 16:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV
''The terminology is based on the complete collapse of French defenses in WWII, their defeat in Viet-Nam, and the frequent undermining of U.S. foreing policy initiatives. These include allying with genocidal Serbs, Chinese nationalists wanting to invade democratic and independent Taiwan, being one of the two largest recipients of oil for food bribes, undermining free trade in favor of big subsidies for French farmers and supporting Saddam Hussein.''

Anyone else think this is more than just a little POV? Especially when it gets to "supporting Saddam Hussein". I mean, really, if we're going to play the "if you were against the war, you supported Saddam" game, we're going to get into a whole Mess-O-Potamia of our own. --MullHistSoc 10:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was User:Nickthaniel wot dunnit. I've reverted and left a note on his talk. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Origin?
The List of neologisms on The Simpsons states that the phrase "originated in Britain in the 1980s but was popularized by Scottish character Groundskeeper Willie," but this article credits "The Simpsons" with creating it. Which is correct?


 * It would be very helpful for the article to explain where the "monkey" bit comes from. I recall hearing there was a specific historical episode this refers to but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Any ideas? ElectricRay 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hartlepool, I'd guess.

Merge with Simpsons Neologisms
Oppose as per SN talk page.--Anchoress 07:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's grown beyond this though and is used quite frequently, particularly here in the UK. I have added details of William Hague using it on the page. Michaelritchie200 09:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also fairly common amongst European online gamers, specifically, online matches where French and British gamers clash and tempers begin to rage. Although I can't source it, obviously and thus I won't make a change by myself, I've been in several situations where CESM is commonly used, much to the confusion/anger of French gamers and sadistic enjoyment of my fellow englishmen, citing any battle from Agincourt, Crecy and Harfleur to Waterloo, The Battle of France and Vietnam [Yes, the French were there too . . .]. Gets VERY annoying after a while --JavaJawaUK 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
Including an appropriate image would be nice. I recommend this one.

Origin Aspect
The origin part cited that it was due to the French collapse to German forces in world war two, myself and many of my associates took it to be due to the fact the French incessantly had their arses reamed by the British throughout history, long before WWII, long before Napoleon, long before Agincourt. I believe this should be reflected in the article, yet as I am not a regular, nor of the mindset to be posting this late at night, I urge one of the fine editors of this article to make the ammendments as they see fit. The WWII reference may specifically be due to the fact that it is the only instance in which the Americans were on the 'good guys' side in their history, as they supported Napoleon in many under-the-table ways during that war where again the French were reamed. Thus indicative that the original authors were most likely American and didn't have much grounds of history past the era of America's foundation as a country. Jachin 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to back this up, or is it purely based on impressions you have about the origins? This sounds highly questionable to me. - BalthCat 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Something found on the web. Just an American's refreshing opinion:

It really, really amused me when Americans call the French "surrender monkeys". Due to various factors (shorter history, larger size, more geographic isolation) the US does not exactly have an unvarnished tradition of beating great powers on the field of single combat.

- The US won the revolutionary war... with substantial French help.

- The US started the war of 1812 but its invasion was beaten back and a peace treaty was signed.

- The only really serious war that was actually fought on a lot of US territory since the country was created was the Civil War... against itself. So part of the US surrendered to itself.

- The US did grab big chunks of territory from Mexico and Spain, pretty easily because they were just plain nowhere near as strong.

- In WWI, the US stayed out until the absolute last minute. Some claim that they helped "turn the tide", but what that really means is that other countries slogged it out for a brutal four years of actual fighting, and then the US sent a smaller force which barely reached the front lines before an armistice was signed, and the threat of additional troops may or may not have contributed to the armistice.

- In WW2, the US stayed out until directly attacked. It was initially so unprepared that it suffered crushing defeats against Imperial Japan, a smaller nation with a much smaller economy, and even a smaller navy. It won after nearly four years, mostly by virtue of being bigger rather than any strategic brilliance. On the European front, Hitler was defeated by the Russians (who were given some equipment by the US/west after they'd already fought the Germans to a standstill, thus allowing/hastening their offensive), and the US sent troops to add a western front, hasten his downfall, and incidentally prevent the Soviets from seizing all of Europe.

- In the Korean war, the US protected South Korea, but was beaten back out of North Korea by the Chinese.

- Since then, US military history has been pretty simple. The US has only fought ground wars against vastly inferior militaries. It defeats them in straight on battle, but tends to lose guerilla wars. Of the three major wars it's fought since Korea - Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II - Vietnam will be abandoned to guerillas, Iraq I stopped short of taking Baghdad because of fear of chaos, guerillas, etc., and Iraq II is such a quagmire of guerillas that it's basically inevitable that the US will pull out without having defeated them, and leave a low-level war in progress in the country.

- Then there's Afghanistan, not really a major ground war for the US since it basically won by bribing the locals into overthrowing the regime, and helping them with airstrikes. US troops fought one major battle at the Shah-i-kot, which if you know about that battle was actually sort of humiliating. The US was trying to surround and capture a large force of Al Qaeda troops holed up in a mountain valley, and use some Afghan allies as the main assault force in order to make them look good. Both goals utterly failed. The US didn't suffer a lot of casualties, but the battle should (and may) go down in history in military circles as a spectacular example of what not to do. US troops have been involved in the postwar occupation... in which their old enemy the Taliban has gained new strength, and the Afghan central government still controls little outside of Kabul.

It seems to be a popular misconception in the US that America has an unusually glorious military history, when in fact it's one of the less distinguished of the great powers, including in the 20th century itself. The US has the *largest military* today by far, but that's not quite the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onaryc (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I find it perplexing how the then-third world countries of Haiti and Vietnam could defeat a major european power like the French. Did any other Western European countries have similar experiences with their colonies? Maybe these things contributed to the French image of military weakness? -Taco325i 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About Taco325i's comment above, I'll just say that I don't find it perplexing how 50,000 French troops were defeated in Vietnam whereas ten times as many US troops (with B52's and napalm) were defeated in Vietnam too. What I do find perplexing is that the myth of French cowardice and/or military weakness goes on. When thousands of US soldiers die, it's courage, when thousands of french soldiers die (like in 1939) it's military incompetence. When the British soldiers run away from german troops in 1940, running back to England, nobody makes jokes about the British being cowards. The French, instead, are the butt of "surrender" jokes in the US, even though they fought as long and as hard, and killed as many German soldiers... and although France was the only nation that shared a border with Germany and declared war on Germany in 1939, at a time when there was no eastern front, no Russian army to kill 80% of the German troops like they did in 1944... It can be argued that Normandy invasion stories make more spectacular scenes for war movies, and that Hollywood have always been more competent in making war epics than post-war French or Russian cinema. It could also be argued that US TV viewers will find it more acceptable and reassuring that if the French would not participate in the Iraq war, it's because they are cowardly or weak rather than right about their reasons for not going, even though it turned out that they were actually right. The problem is, the jokes (and the "coward" stereotypes) still go on in the States. And, one might add, so does the appalling ignorance of historical facts. Onaryc 11:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising that nobody makes jokes about the British being cowards because when it came to fighting for their homeland they did not surrender in mere 40 days (and didn't surrender at all) unlike the French, even though a large part of France was still free from German troops at the time of the surrender. As for the argument that the defeat of British Expeditionary Force somehow mitigates the French surrender, it's a very lame excuse put up by people who are either void of any kind of logic or trying to mislead average uninformed Joes. First, like I said, the British weren't fighting for their homeland there, so they were much less motivated to fight than the French should have been; second, they had to obey the order of the retarded French top brass, third and most important, there were very few of them compared to the total number of combatants. Only a loony can think that 10 divisions of BEF should stop 153 German & Italian divisions when millions of French soldiers were throwing their rifles away (1,900,000 POWs most of whom were French). The only thing BEF could do is to aid the French AND they did it. Therefore the presence of BEF on the battlefield does not in any way excuses the French military, but actually makes them even more pathetic. As for "80% of the German troops killed by Russians" I would very much like to see the source of that, but I'm sure you won't provide it because the number was clearly taken out of your head.B-2Admirer (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P. S. I didn't come here to promote the "surrender monkey" stereotype, but I have no reason to keep quiet when a person like Onaryc puts up some blatantly illogical arguments to excuse his beloved French. The phase "part of the US surrendered to itself" can only be characterized as an oxymoron. Well, like I said I don't promote any stereotypes, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the French have not nearly put up a real fight during the French Campaign of WWII. Also they contributed next to nothing to the Victory over Hitler, but that doesn't stop them from teaching their children that "France liberated itself", although it's pretty obvious that if it wasn't for the US and British troops France would be "liberating itself" to this day if not from Nazis then from the Soviets.B-2Admirer (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P. P. S. Onaryc's statement "ten times as many US troops (with B52's and napalm) were defeated in Vietnam" is another sample of his twisted logic. Can he name a single US base that was overrun by VC/NVA? Can he name a single battle the US military lost in Vietnam? Well, the US undoubtedly lost the hearts and minds of the population (not just Vietnamese, but also American), but that's hardly a military defeat. The French military were fighting to keep Vietnam a part of France, then their base was captured, and they walked out of it stripped of their weapons with their hands lifted up. Shortly afterwards Vietnam became independent. Have they been defeated? Certainly yes. The US were fighting along with the state of South Vietnam to defend its borders from the communist North Vietnam. They were successful in fending off every offensive launched at them, but the majority of the US public grew disillusioned of the war and wanted the withdrawal of the US troops. It would not matter if the US were a USSR-like totalitarian state, in which case the state of South Vietnam would still exist today, but the States were (and still are) a democratic country, so every politician who had any hopes of being elected had to promise he'd do anything to ensure a quick withdrawal of the US troops from Vietnam. Richard Nixon became the president and he did as he promised to - ordered the withdrawal of the US troops from Vietnam. Several years later NVA easily conquered South Vietnam abandoned by their mighty ally. Have the US been defeated? Of course not. They withdraw from the war, which caused the defeat of South Vietnam. B-2Admirer (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting merger & redirection
to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people

68.113.160.226 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(ps just kidding)

whats with all the connections with Rupert Murdoch?
There's all these ties of Rupert Murdoch owning Fox News and the Simpsons, which he does. But it's repeated and used irrelevantly, to the point of redundancy. I don't know what the big deal is, the Simpsons in a few episodes featured clips of an animated Fox News anchor discussing happenings in the episode while running ridiculous tickers such as "Do Democrats cause cancer?", obviously satirizing Fox News' alleged bias.--Exander 08:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Article to Talk
I moved this:
 * I would like to say that it's a legitimate phrase and has a right to be here, why the questioning whether a phrase from a cartoon should be on wikipedia? I for one am glad it's on here cos I was chatting to some transatlantic buddies about their finding the phrase 'yanks' offensive, and I offered 'burger-eating invasion monkeys' as an example of a genuinely offensive (but hilarious) phrase. I had to search to find the right expression. Before reading this page though I always thought it was from something before the Simpsons...

from article to here. Avalon 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Monkey reference
The monkey part of the phrase stems from when residents of middlesborough put a monkey on trial and subsequently hanged it; assuming that it was a frenchman. This was during the hundred years war (I think) and francophobia was at an all time high, the people of middlesborough had never seen a frenchman or monkey before and so assumed they were the same.


 * Sigh. It was Hartlepool in the Napoleonic wars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.73.199 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * That's the one!84.64.104.173 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Espèce d'idiots! Groundskeeper Willie is referring to the pupils as monkeys. The cheese-eating surrender is a dig at the French but the monkeys are the pre-teen students. Deconstructing, calling the French cheese-eating surrender kids doen't make sense. So, the current usage of this cultural reference misses the orginal context and should be cheese-eating surrender losers, for example. Sleigh (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Dubious deconstructionist claims aside,) I also find it a bit implausible that the monkey reference is in there as anything other than a funny noun. Is there a basis for this or is it just pure speculation? 145.18.23.20 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nypost surrender monkeys.jpg
Image:Nypost surrender monkeys.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The revert of Tagishsimon
A change was reverted:


 * "It is seen by some to be very ironic due to the crucial role the French played in the American Revolutionary War."

I think this reversion was a little unjust, so thought the line needed a little explanation. Read Anti-French sentiment in the United States and American Revolutionary War. The latter cites Tombs (2006), saying that the French spent 1.3 billion livres, which was a major factor in the [[French Revolution". British Commons Journals of 1778 state the alliance of Spain and France with America as being the major reason for wanting to end the war ("...still involved in the War with Three powerful nations in Europe, without one Single Ally", Veneris 15 die Martii, p. 896). I have spoken to many people who realise the irony of the statement also, so I think the line should be reinstated. Otherwise the article has bias.

I'd welcome other views. Please give reason if you disagree, otherwise I'll revert it back in a day or so. Thanks, Proberts2003 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the sentence "It is seen by some to be very ironic due to the crucial role the French played in the American War of Independence." The question I asked myself is "by whom is it seen in this way as ironical". The page over the years has seen many conjectures on the reason/meaning of the French part of the saying. So mainly, I pulled it because it is an assertion for which I must doubt that there is any objective basis. Further, it was added to the lead paragraph. That means it should be one of the most important things about the phrase. Even were the assertion to be provable - such as by citing the MORI poll in which people 'fessed up to thinking about the war of independence when presented with the phrase - the sentence would have been better added to some subsidiary paragraph. Happy to discuss further, if you want. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Scotland and France
Sorry, I'm not quite sold on the idea that the Scots have a particular love for the French. The article sites the Auld Alliance of 1295??? How about the Battle of the Boyne when Scots and Scots-Irishmen fought against the Franco-Irish? Not to mention the antagonism between the UK in general and France over the past couple centuries.


 * I'm not sold on the whole sentence & so have removed it. This article is a bit of a magnet for people who think they know the significance and connotations of the word French in the phrase. We could do with more cited references, and much less speculation and conjecture. --Tagishsimon (talk)

+1 for deletion
this entry is un-encyclopedic. Izaakb 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

alongside most of the world?
Quote "France opposed many U.S. positions and actions, in particular, alongside most of the world, the 2003 invasion of Iraq". Why alongside most of the world? Quite possibly true, but what's the source/evidence?--Kotniski 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think it would be relevant to precise and maybe to "update" this issue (opposition in actions etc..)SiftingJeff 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

usage in Britain
I really doubt that any politician in the UK would ever use this phrase in anything other than an ironic manner. Unusual Cheese 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It says "Conservative", so politican isn't really valid anyway 195.157.52.65 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've amended it to "right wing". We have the (still uncited but eminently believable) Nigel Farage quote. I can imagine the phrases use by an idiot politico who thinks he is amongst friends. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence?
204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I was thinking the same thing... I think someone just made a mistake. Geosultan4 (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

A sense of mild surprise
am i the only one who half-expected this to redirect to French people? ;OD Onesecondglance (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

monkey?
''The "Monkey" part likely refers to the tale of residents of Hartlepool mistaking a Monkey for a French spy. ''
 * This is at the very least a synthesis of ideas not supported in any way by the (unreliable) reference backing it up. I have removed it. It seems likely to me that the reason "monkey" is in there is because monkeys are funny and the Simpsons is a comedy. While I have heard this story before, it is not well known in the States, and it seems highly unlikely that this is what the writers had in mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I added it, and indeed you are correct, I can't back it with any particular source that is what the writer of the simpsons script was writing (Though I'll note it only says "popularized", not created.
 * However (1) Are monkeys particular known for surrender? Can't see where the monkey comes from if not something like this (and the story about Hartelepool is actually very well known, don't confuse "I don't know about it and neither do my friends" with "is not well known in the states")

I also added this, but it was removed. As to the phrase not being well known in the States, it was said by Willy, who's Scottish, and it's possible the tale actually originated near Peterhead, in Scotland. Linda (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (2) quote "The "surrender" element of the phrase refers to the perceived proclivity of the French to surrender in military confrontations." - I can't see any source from this which says it's where the writer got it from. etc.
 * The whole section is largely conjecture. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll grant that the bit about "surrender" is not properly sourced, but frankly it just doesn't seem as unbelievable as your assertion about the Hartlepool monkey. (aside:I love that story, be it true or false, related to this or not, it's just funny) There is/was a perception among certain segments of the American population that the French are cowardly and surrender at the drop of a hat. American involvement in Vietnam after the French lost control, and French opposition to our lovely little war in Iraq probably helped to keep this perception alive. This item, predictably from Fox News, shows the attitude some folks had right before the war started, as does the whole Freedom Fries foolishness. The true irony here is that Matt Groening is known to be a liberal, and often pokes fun at Rupert Murdoch, Fox, and the Republican Party, and certainly never intended way back in 1995 that this phrase would be used in such a manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as unbelivable in your eyes you mean. As I said the story about the monkey is very well known (the Team mascot for Hartlepool football club is based on it), and I can't see any great plausible connection between surrender and monkeys. Are monkeys well known for surrender? Or could the relation be as my take, between the French and monkeys. I don't think the part needs restoring as it is unsourced, but no more or less so than the surrender part, the standard for inclusion you seem to be applying however is, "I agree with it", which is not wikipedia's standard. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I supplied a ref for the surrender part, and I added it to the article. I don't think there is a connection between "surrender" and "monkeys". As I said before, monkeys are funny, and the Simpsons is a comedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point, your reference doesn't provide any basis for beliveing that is what the writer for the simpsons was contemplating when he wrote that line, no more than my reference for the Hartlepool monkey shows that is what he was contemplating either. In both cases looking at how we individualy interpret it and therefore asserting that this is the basis of it is original reasearch. As to the comment about monkeys being "funny", I guess we'll have to agree to differ. A statement which consists of "cheese eating", something the French are known for, "surrender" against something the French are known for and in your view the arbitary adding of Monkey because they are "funny" just escapes me. (I took a look through the Monkey article and guess what, no mention of the word Funny, Humour (Humor) or entertainment are made). Most people who encounter the story are intrigued by it and find it funny, the prospect of the writer having heard the story (which is very common) and reacting likewise seems totally plausible to me. But again it comes back around to that, it's plausible to me as is the surrender link, but is is documented in reliable sources that is the basis of the comment from the writer (for either part), No. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that I believe it has been demonstrated that there are reliable sources demonstrating an attitude in America (where the Simpsons is written and the market it is primarily for) that the French are prone to surrender. I think that it is a logical connection with this phrase. You have provided a source indicating that a couple of English townspeople may or may not have mistaken a monkey for a Frenchman a few hundred years ago. I don't see a logical connection there. Monkeys have in fact been a staple of comedy films and television for some time, Bedtime for Bonzo, Every Which Way But Loose, Dunston Checks In, and the episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets a "helper monkey" being just what I could come up with off the top of my head. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good God, is the use of "monkey" as a derogatory ethnic slur either so unquestioned or so unknown? And that list doesn't even mention the evolutionary overtones. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.180 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

link to vercingetorix
is that here as an example of frenchmen that have surrendered? 122.57.211.91 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * removed, irrelevant with the subject of this article--Lilyu (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

French-dubbed version of the Simpson episode
In the episode I know (European version), Willie teachs English and says "Hello, mangeurs de rosbif à la gelée de groseille" ("Hello, redcurrant jelly roastbeef eaters"), although he still wears a striped jumper and a beret and a French flag hangs in the background. Éclusette (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen this one in French, but according to the scripts on SimpsonsPark.com, which are transcribed from the episodes (and are exact transcriptions according to the ones I've watched and read at the same time), Willy says "rendez-vous, singes mangeurs de fromage". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds a bit dubious to me. The text currently claims:
 * When "'Round Springfield" was dubbed in French, the line became "Rendez-vous, singes mangeurs de fromage" ("Surrender, you cheese-eating monkeys"). http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2234263.ece]
 * The cited reference is to a pay-walled Times article, which can't be checked, but "Rendez-vous" doesn't translate as "Surrender" as the latter would actually be "Abandonner." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

use of "opprobrious" to describe the phrase
Describing the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkey" as being an opprobrious comment (i.e. a disgraceful, outrageously shameful comment) is anything but: 1) point of view neutral; or 2) accepted by all as a fact (there are many who would agree with the tone of the comment). As such I am changing the phrase "and other opprobrious comments" to "and other similar comments" to convey the gist of the sentence - that is that this phrase and others like it have been used by American Media outlets - without using non-pov neutral langauge or polemic language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.150.115 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

David Letterman?
I would have bet anything that David Letterman coined this expression in the '80s, but I can't find a source. But I'm pretty sure it predates 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.1.107 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

re: use of "opprobrious" to describe the phrase
If in fact "there are many who would agree with the tone of the comment", then it really might be nice if a few people acquainted themselves with some history. It's a revolting slur, as the 360,000 killed and wounded, and 1,9 taken prisoner in the Battle of France would tell you. As indeed would the nearly 1,7 million French soldiers who died in just the first world war, more than have died in every US conflict since the founding of the country. So yes, opprobrious would be pretty accurate. If you read actual history. 78.227.32.158 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dying in combat or "being taken prisoner" (AKA *surrendering*) is certainly no indication of bravery, at best it's a measure of incompetence, but more likely it's a measure of cowardice. The contrast to the US deaths is quite striking and only goes to prove the superiority of the US military, and of course the original point of the entire entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.115 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Was that your entry for jerk post of the year? Congratulations. You won. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a shame we let foreigners in here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.172 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the "superiority of US army" during WW2 is easily proved with the unconditional surrender of american Phillipines island inspite of superior numbers, 2/3 prisoners of war in 1942
 * Jerk post or no jerk post, there's a grain of truth in his words. I personally find the French POW/KIA ratio very strange. Having more than six times as much "taken prisoner" than killed suggests that they were "taken" without even firing a single shot. And by the way, I would recommend the froggie-lovers of whatever nation to abandon the "Battle of France" title which has quite rightly been described as pretentious, and use something neutral, like "Invasion of France". By desperately trying to convince people that there was much of a battle they are only enticing their opponents to use just as heavily but oppositely charged titles ("Speedy Surrender of 1940" sounds good to me). The real Battle of France, if there ever was one, happened in 1944 and was fought by US, British and Canadian troops (and, obviously, Germans on the opposite side), so I consider describing the event of 1940 as a "battle" an insult to those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.126.32 (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the campaign of France is described in wikipedia and most sources as the "battle of france" since there were actual battles and fights (hannut, gembloux, dunkirk) but I see what you are referring to. For example the battle of castlebar was described as the "races of castlebar" because of the speed at which the British troops ran away and fled the battlefield.77.192.40.138 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the French campaign enjoys the title "Battle of France" on wikipedia and yes, I'm aware that there were actual battles during it, but the former is only due to France-related articles being dominated by the froggie-lovers who have just annoyed everyone else into submission and it's futile to wage an editorial war on those. As to the latter, well it still does not grant the title because the territory contested by battle was rather small compared to the whole country. Consider that the Polish campaign was titled "Invasion of Poland" last time I checked, even though the Battles with German and Soviet troops happened very nearly across the whole country and the campaign culminated with the surrender of Warsaw after a brutal fighting. Rather different from having declared your capital an open city, as the French did, and yet, the poor unfortunate Poles aren't granted the right to have the battle for their country on wiki. I believe it's because they don't have their equivalent of froggie-lovers in the English-speaking world. Do you propose another explanation?81.30.84.70 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Also the surrendering reputation is somewhat limited to the Anglo-American culture, making the translation of the word irrelevant to other languages."
Whoever added this would do well by providing a source. I'm from Belarus which last time I checked wasn't a part of "Anglo-American culture" and let's just say I've never heared anyone using the pretentious "Battle of France" title here, while I have heared people describing the Frech Campaign of WW2 and the subsequent widespread collaboration as a shameful surrender of one's homeland...109.126.164.184 (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the above point, the French *did* in fact surrender with remarkable speed and then many collaborated with the Germans, including the deportation of Jews for the Holocaust. And then turned on the collaborators as soon as it appeared safe to do so. The French resistance was quite heroic but in tiny numbers. It's hardly a unique concept that the French are cowardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.193.172 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The french surrendered as all european countries who were invaded and coul?nt resist to the German Blitzkieg. The BEF ran away and the "miracle of Dunkirk" was only possible thanks to the rear guard fight of the french troops (that's make the Brits "Runaway monckeys". Now for those who think that France is a nation of cowards: go away attack it...!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.251.121.93 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Do you think anyone but your fellow froggie-lovers is going to take seriously your BS about the French who couldn't save their own country, but could and did save BEF? Seriously, why can't the froggie-lovers be a bit more creative, like invent some novelty areguments, instead of just repeating each other and trying to shift the blame on someone else (usually Germans or Britons). Whatever BEF has done is completely irrelavant when we're talking about the French, try to get it through your skull. Even a Frenchman shouldn't place the blame for the fall of France on BEF, unless it's normal for a Frenchman to be comletely inept at basic arithmetics (try to calculate what percentage of troops taking part in the French campaing were British). A non-Frenchman would also say that defending a country is the job of its population, but that's something the French (and, by extension, froggie-lovers) apparently have big trouble understanding. That's why you have to jugde the British by their defence of Britain and the French by their defence of France, instead of jugding both by their defence of France, as the froggie-lovers try to do.46.165.197.29 (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Your "justification" won't erase the fact that British retreated faster than the French up to their Island which basically prevented any Blitzkkrieg tactic by Germany. The term being political mostly, It would have been coined by the USA the same way about glorious UK history of being invaded by foreign armies and losing european/american territories, if UK had used the right of veto against USA for Iraqi invasion. Which tells us a lot about political surrender to the most powerful. Allying with the big guy to beat the small resistant is always easier indeed. As for the guy from Belarus, maybe he has to ask himself if spitting on another country's surrender is not a good way to forget that his own country is not even independant.77.192.40.138 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Get real. Nobody's going to be interested in the readings of the British speedometers by comparison to the French ones when those two were retreating from the Germans. Such technicalities only concern froggie-lovers choked on their own inferiority complex. Said another way, if the French think that the British only exist to defend France when the Germans come it's a solely French problem and the British are wise not to make it theirs. Speculations aside, right now we can only observe that the British fared much better than the French during WWII, anyone who can't live with it can always kill himself. The British involvement certainly didn't end with the fall of France and the French one certainly did. So, it's funny how the froggie-lovers are so self-centered, they present the defeat of BEF as a proof of the British being no better or worse than the French, even though it's only a minor part of the British contribution to the war. There are far more embarrassing defeats for the British than in France (take Singapore, for instance), but I suspect that even if there was, like, one single Briton taking part in the defense of France, the froggie-lovers would still be calculating the speed with which the man retreated from the Germans and coming to the inevitable conclusion that it was higher than the speed of the retreating French troops. And no, no matter how much you cherish this belief, the British would not be called by the title of this article if they opposed the US. As you should know, the Germans weren't even though they too opposed the invasion of Iraq, so there must be something that makes the French different from most other nations. Obviously it's not the military defeats, as every country has plenty of those. Maybe it's the French way of dealing with them (or anything else they don't like about their history) by making tons of excuses and talking about myriads of unrelated thing in the vain hope that the opponent will forget what the argument was about. Oh, and I would very much like to hear your criteria of a country's independence. Maybe you should also check France against those. If Belarus failed to meet them, who knows if France will?81.30.84.70 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand indeed that you are not interested in culture and history, anglosaxon fanboys like the guy above you prefer to believe racist stereotypes and national propaganda indeed. However don't take your case for a generality. As to the supposed "inferiority complex", i think you need to remind who is calling the other "names". French don't spit on British, actually most French are anglophiles (very far from being deserved such admiration IMO) you just need to come to France to understand that very quicly. This is far from being the case for British people who have more a french-hating stance like you, your ignorant mate above, and most if not all english media. But I somehow can understand that they will never forgive the French for taking all their continental territories during middleages and forcing them to be Islanders after Hundred years war. That's for the inferiority complex. Get over it at once77.197.174.181 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what culture's got to do with that "CESM" term, but I'm very much interested in history, the world history, I mean, while you appear to be only interested in history of France. Nothing wrong with it, but you've got to realize that it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture. I can't say much about the real-life interaction between the French and the British, since I'm neither and don't live in any of those countries. I saw both cases of bashing one by another on the Internet, but not often. I personally have nothing against French people as such, but I do have something against the froggie-lovers of any nation, the kind of people who compile lists like this one in order to prove (mostly to themselves) that, and I quote, for the past thousand years the French have the most glorious military history in Europe and possibly in the whole world. I'd like to clarify that by using the term "froggie-lovers" I don't mean to call the French "froggies", it's just that the term seems most appropriate for the people who behave like I described. BTW, I also have something against froggie-haters who can't find a cause better than French-bashing to dedicate their lives to. Will gladly visit France if you pay my fares, if you can promise that I don't meet too many jerks I read about a couple of times, I mean those who refuse to speak English with a foreigner even though they can. I don't speak French, as you can imagine.87.236.194.70 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm very much interested in history" I think the comments you can read above are enough to prove people here are not interested in history at all. Well it's not really strange when we consider on which page we are talking, a racist term purely invented for French bashing. "while you appear to be only interested in history of France" I am always interested in history versus ignorant stereotypes. In that matter I can talk about Spain, Poland, Italy, Canada, Germany, England, Ireland, Scotland, USA, North africa. It's not a "frog loving" thing to say comments about French military history since the last 1000 years, according to BBC It is one of the most providing country in the world in terms of war and battles. If you have the motivation studying history of France you'll see that it participated to an uncountable number of battles and wars, more than any other country in terms of numbers. I don't know why this fact pisses you off so much but that's the way it is. If people can't live with that fact, well they can still "kill themselves" to take the guy's words. As for the battle of France, if you are really interested in history you would know that the battle of hannut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hannut was up to that day the biggest tank battle ever, a French tactical victory in spite of numbers. That's for the Belarus calling the term "battle of France" as "pretentious". It is true that the hundred of thousand of British forces had to retreat just like the French because the ardennes risky contournment by Hitler permitted Germany to align twice numbers + flanking positions against allies. There is nothing about courage lacking in those facts, but plain science. Nobody defeated German tactics aside Staline at the cost of 25 million lives (half french population) and half his country invaded. Even American success was not comparable because they faced a german army that was mostly busy on the eastern front and facing internal resistance and multifrontal attack (afrika). So I'm still wondering why the racism is only directed towards France and not all the european countries that had been invaded very fast like Czech republic, Poland, Belgium, Nederlands, British fast retreat and failure at Market garden, American unconditionnal surrender of the phillipines, Russia twice bigger country mostly invaded in 1942 etc etc. Well I know why, because it's 100% political and has nothing to do with history but with the fact that Chirac vetoed American invasion of Iraq. The haters from any country in the world can now follow the trend and bash the French without much risk even though their own country has more to blame. Yes the Belarus guy talks about "shameful surrender of one's homeland" but I don't understand then why he's happy about his country being a puppy state for Putine and not even fighting back like the French resistance and exterior forces did after capitulation and until the end of the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bir_Hakeim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Paris If people were not so ignorant and stopped believing in stereotypes "made in USA" that in my experience most anglosaxon people believe, but also now other peoples because of the internets, then those people you describe as wanting to "prove something to themselves" would not be so insistant in reminding everyone the history, the real one, to the racist people all over the world.77.197.174.228 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who was born in Poland, I find this kind of speculation about the French being "surrender monkeys," when it comes from Americans, kind of suspect. America is defended by two natural forces called the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. It amuses me to think how fast the British would have crushed the young American revolution had America been located in, say, Ireland. The French (liked the Poles) have the misfortune of sharing a border with the mad Teutonic nation (that's Germany, kids). It's hard to share that border. It puts you in close proximity with the war machine. If the U.S.A. was located where France is, it would've capitulated very quickly to the Germans in 1938. The Americans wouldn't have had time to dither around when decided whether to join WWII. The German American Bund (remember those homegrown Nazis?) would've stalled America's joining the war and maybe made a nice third column. You guys are silly. 76.14.66.186 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Source
Some dull old Daily Mal story


 * Big so what. Phrase is used by idiot bloggers and picked up by the Daily Hate. A nation yawns. It is a frequently enough used phrase, and few if any instances of its use need to be added to the article. It's genesis and early adoption are of importance. Each new use, not so much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheese-eating Sideways Monkeys!
Anybody wanna add that? 76.94.193.171 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Very few riffs on this phrase deserve a mention in the article. Certainly not this one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this really worthy of an encyclopedia article?
In 2001-2007, a bunch of right-wing American commenters use a phrase to express their disgust with the French for not joining in the Iraq War. They get a laugh out of it. They pass it around. The war proves to be a fiasco. They stop using the phrase. Is this really worthy of an encyclopedia article? If so, should the article mention that the phrase fell out of fashion after it became clear that the French were right for not marching into the quagmire? Chisme (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but there certainly were a lot of reliable sources showing its usage. Most of which you seem to have deleted for some reason, most baffling the two Oxford Quote dictionaries, which you've then proceeded to claim needs a citation in the lead. Gran2 08:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worthy of a short article maybe, which is why I made the cuts. Chisme (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...I don't really see your point. Either it doesn't justify an article or it does. You seem to first be implying that it didn't as it wasn't notable, yet you now seem to be claiming it does deserve its own article, but only with a bunch of stuff showing its notability removed (again, including the two quote dictionaries which you then proceeded to tag in the lead as unsourced). I agree there was some fluff, but I think you removed a lot of good stuff too. Gran2 15:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Here's my point: Complex subjects require long, detailed articles; simple subjects don't. This is a simple subject. As a matter of fact, it's a Simpsons cartoon fan page, not really a subject worthy of an encyclopedia. But hey, what do I know? Even D'oh! has an article in this encyclopedia, and a long one at that. I'd prefer it if this kind of thing were reserved for Simpsons fan forums. Chisme (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Completely wrong attribution
The quote did not originate from the Simpsons, but from Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.19.57 (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is your source for this? I've just checked, and none of the words "cheese", "eating", "surrender", "monkey" appear at any point in the script.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)