by Theodore Dalrymple
Driving through what my sister-in-law calls la France morte—the France that is dead—my wife and I were struck by the peculiar gloom of so many of the small country towns that would once have provided services for the farmers of the surrounding agricultural areas. Now the towns’ principal economic activity seems to be the collection of pensions and the provision of the very few services that those who drew such pensions required or could afford.
The death of the towns was brought about by the replacement of small farms by agribusiness, which I suppose must be more efficient in one sense or others than small farms, but which has nevertheless coincided with the transformation of France from a net food exporter to a net food importer, at least if an article in Le Figaro is to be believed.
Stopping overnight in one of these small dead towns, we discovered to our displeasure that the only inn was owned and run by English people, and that the garden outside was full of English attracted to live in the area by the cheapness of the property. The only Frenchman among them was a severe alcoholic with an earring, the outward sign of his nonconformity, his desire to drink in public outweighing the disadvantage of having to do it among the English.
What an unattractive people the English have become, how utterly charmless! They are not necessarily bad people in themselves as individuals, but their contemporary culture has turned them into the least appealing people in the world, at least of those known to me.
The women are worse than the men. They come in two basic shapes: thin from smoking too many cigarettes, or fat from consuming too much alcohol and fried food. The fat ones defy the common prejudice in favor of slimness by exposing large areas of their pudgy flesh to public view. Much of it is tattooed, in an attempt to exhibit independence of mind.
The men, of course, are scarcely more dignified. When they have reached the age of 55, they dress as if they were athletes aged about 20. They accentuate their ugliness by every possible device. One wonders what they see when they look in the mirror, that reflecting surface that always lies.
They are at their worst when they are enjoying themselves, or at least trying to enjoy themselves. It used to be said that the English took their pleasures sadly, but now, alas, they take them loudly, which is much worse. It is as if the more noise they make, the more they are able to convince themselves that they are having a good time. There is desperation in all this, I think. The horrible sound of the English enjoying themselves is almost identical to that of them having a violent dispute. Indeed, once in a hotel in Manchester I woke at two in the morning to hear what I thought was a standard English drunken rabble enjoying itself, only to discover in the morning that in fact it was murdering someone. Of course, murder and enjoyment are not entirely incompatible or directly opposite for such a rabble.
When the women laugh, they emit a very loud sound, or noise, that is half cackle, half scream. It penetrates like a laser and cannot be ignored. But there is something desperate about it also, as if it is emitted in order to persuade others and themselves that they have a sense of humor and that the world is a great joke whose punchline they have understood. Quiet enjoyment for them is, by definition, not enjoyment. Not “I think therefore I am,” but “I make a noise therefore I am,” is their philosophical starting point.
The worst of it is that the vulgarity of the English is not entirely spontaneous, but a matter of pride and ideology. They are proud to be vulgar because they think it politically virtuous to be so. They are not merely lacking in refinement, but they have come to hate and despise refinement as politically suspect in itself.
They have been instilled from an early age with the following pseudo-syllogism:
The masses are good. The masses are vulgar. By being vulgar, a person expresses his solidarity with the masses, imitation being the highest form of flattery and identification. Solidarity with the masses is democratic and therefore moral and virtuous. The more vulgar a person is, the more virtuous.
The assertions and premises of this pseudo-syllogism are all debatable, though it is certainly true that the more they are accepted, the truer they will become. Certainly, extreme vulgarity has become a predominant feature of English life.
The use of demotic language, no matter how inexpressive, is now also taken as a sign of liberation from the terrible constraints of gentility. The more demotic one’s language, therefore, the more liberated one is.
Another strain in the ideological vulgarity of the English is that of multiculturalism. If all cultures are equal, and if you must accept without demur the culture of others, it follows that others must accept your culture without demur. The distinction between habits and culture is slight: If enough people habitually swear, scream, and drink to excess, then swearing, screaming, and drinking to excess become a culture, and no one has a right to criticize it because there is no Archimedean moral point from which to do so.
Thus, it is not necessary to imagine how other people in another country view your behavior when you are there: They have an inalienable duty to accept how you behave, provided that how you behave is a part (or the whole) of your culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a justification for radical egotism. You can scream and shout in public if it is in your culture to do so.
It was obvious, as I watched and listened to the English in this dead town in France, that the question of how they might appear to others did not cross their minds for an instant, or even a fraction of an instant. Such people have self-esteem but no self-respect. They have social rights but no social duties. They frequently stand on their dignity but have no dignity to stand on. They have all the charm of hyenas.
First published in Taki’s magazine.
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
9 Responses
Civilization includes inculcation of the community’s mores, which precede formal listing of Rights and Responsibilities.
Our rot is signaled by rejection of traditional mores, more than abandonment of standards of Right and Wrong.
Babies and toddlers understand, adulterated adults know naught.
I can’t decide if Dalrymple is exaggerating for effect or if he is serious in trashing an entire people. This sort of grotesque screed is a very negative stereotyping that, if I were a British person, I’d find offensive in the extreme. This hateful article seems out of character for the good doctor a writer whose compassion for others is obvious to any reader – though none is to be found in this article. It’s an unfortunate article and adds nothing to any discussion about England and its supposedly fallen, base culture because Dalrymple’s dismissive viciousness is impossible to ignore. I’ve read many articles and books by this author, and reading this article came to me a bit of a shock. When one writes a screed, one should let it sit for a time before sending it along for publication. And once received, the publication should let it sit before publishing. In this case one has the sense that a bitterness that overflowed prompted this article and it unfortunately reached a happy recipient and then again on NER that has been hosting this author for many years, to the happy delight of many including myself. I find these sorts of faux arguments and cruel stereotypical generalizations that are really personal screeds and rants that are founded upon this assertion and ones like it, “The French are…” “The English are…” “The Japanese are…” “The Swedes are…, etc., to be utter failures of rhetoric and argument. This unfortunate article’s gross characterization of the English, based in large part on Dr. Dalrymple’s mind reading capabilities (“It was obvious, as I watched and listened to the English in this dead town in France, that the question of how they might appear to others did not cross their minds for an instant, or even a fraction of an instant”) is completely out of character for this author from my reading experience of him, and having seen him interviewed on the internet. One ought to have more self-control, and practice a more vigorous form of self-denial when it comes to writing and submitting something as negative and unfortunate as this article.
What a shame.
This is foolish. The only question about the good doctor’s screed is, is it accurate or not? In other words, is it true or is it false? Or to be as blunt as possible, is it real or illusory?
His description of 21st-century Britons-on-holiday is not the only such one I’ve read, but as a Yank I reserve judg(e)ment, only asserting that if Brits on holiday are really this way, so too are Yanks — tho’ perhaps on the whole we are somewhat less culturally corrupt thanks to the mass of what H. L. Mencken called the “booboisie,” the mass of admittedly not very intelligent and certainly not very learned and dulle, but also certainly devout Evangelicals that still (thank God!) make up so much of our population, and not only in flyover country.
I say all this as someone with a doctorate and an MBA (mentioned because the periti tend to listen only to other periti; but the most intelligent and well read and well-written man I knew left school at 16) who is an Orthodox Christian believer who was raised traditional Roman Catholic in a US Foreign Service family in India, Pakistan, and Kenya when these countries were still culturally and materially marked by years of colonialism under the Raj.
Patrick,
Unfortunately, most of your comments here are rubbish. You appear to miss the point– Dalrymple’s article condemning ENTIRE nation groups is illegitimate. Because Dalrymple’s argument is illegitimate, your question– based as it is, apparently, on your many years of exceptionally poor education at fake institutions of higher learning — is the wrong question.
Dalrymple stereotyping is wrong, just as your curiosity as to the accuracy of his mistaken assertions are. It’s a sad thing to see such a highly intelligent and superbly educated person such as yourself– at least according to your own declaration– so shockingly mistaken in your assessment.
Fundamentally–and this is important, so please pay attention–a national identity such as “the English” does not literally represent a population group. Therefore, when someone says, “all British are,” or “all French are,” or “all Equadorians are,” they are expressing a logical falsehood because NOT all British, French, or Equadorians are the same, with all the same thoughts and feelings within their national identity groups as expressed by Dalrymple and yourself in your comments, at least by implication.
It’s a sad day when a member of the periti, such as yourself, has such a disturbing lack of comprehension of true matters that often fall to us non-periti to correct.
Completely agree withthe unnamed NER commenter above
Firstly I must say that I have to agree that it’s very unusual for Dr D throw the book at an entire nationality. He’s normally very good at identifying the troublesome sectors and when he does that we pretty much all agree with his observations.
If he’d qualified his remarks with phrases like ” the great unwashed ” or ” the yob crowds” 😉 then most of us wouldn’t have taken offence.
I’ve found that most English people I’ve met on vacation have been the epitome of politeness and friendliness.
I think that the “charter flight/char-a-banc contingent are the ones who give us a bad name and I’ve had two fairlyrecent experiences that validate his comments.
Both were in Mexico and both were at all inclusive resorts, peaceful and relaxing as can be until the TUI charter flight arrived from the UK.. it was like rolling thunder had just been released.
The poolside bars became UFC octagons, the pools themselves became howling drunken parties with everyone screeching, fighting and boozing like there was gonna be prohibition the following day. Fat girls with tattoos, pudgy bodies, razor haired mullets (and that was only the kids😉)
Noise was the only thing they seemed comfortable with and not one of them picked up a piece of the drunken debris they left behind. “Leave it where you drop it” was the order of the day.
In the evenings it got even worse, as a day at the pool bar had left most of them insensible and unmanageable and it went on until they’d either passed out or pulled the chick they were after. Absolutely no regard for the comfort of other guests and exactly the same behavior at both resorts.
So , with those qualifiers I agree with most of what Theodore has described.
The second thing I want to say is in reply to Patrick Moore’s comment.
For a person (if he really is a person, who knows with today’s UAI-
(unintelligent artificial intelligence?). For a person to let us know that he is an MBA with a PHD and then write such appalling drivel leads me to question who gave out the MBA and the PHD ( piled higher and deeper in this case)
Probably from the University of Calcutta as in the old cartoon strip.
It’s undoubtedly the most unintelligible writing I’ve seen in the comments section And I’ve submitted some myself that might qualify for that prize. It’s time to change medications.😊
Was a desk clerk in my former life in Orlando. Most obnoxious in groups were Brazilians; most polite and empathic as individuals were Brazilians.
Your honour,
I rest my case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12279721/Shocking-footage-shows-two-men-brawling-Ryanair-plane-argument-seat.html
This should be an ever open post
here’s more proof
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12356767/Costa-Del-queue-Holidaymakers-lie-floor-two-hour-early-morning-wait-sunloungers-fight-race-pool-seats.html