Talk:French Americans/Archive 1

Anglo-speaking bias?

BIAS. The term "French-American", as well as the term "French-Canadian", is an American concept. In France, they are not considered French but French-speaking. Are labeled "French" the people who have a French nationality, even though they would not speak French. "French-American" would be either labeled "Américains francophones" (French-speaking Americans) or "Américains d'origine française" (Americans of French descent). "French Canadians" are just referred to "Québécquois", even if some don't live in Québec, or "Canadiens francophones". JB, 12/16/06.

How is it biased? People whose ancestors came from France are considered French Americans, just as people with family roots in Germany are German Americans, people with roots in China are Chinese Americans, and so on. If other countries classify people differently, good for them, but that really is irrelevant. Funnyhat 06:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is not biased. The English version of Wikipedia is maintained by the native English speakers, for whom the concept of "French Americans" is a reality. Furthermore, in the US, ethnicity or nation of origin is taken into consideration by the census bureau. Even if sometimes this does not mean a lot. For instance I am French-born, immigrated to the States, became citizen, now I am considered a French American, but on the census form, I indicate both that I am of French and Flemish ethnicity, being that my father is a French Flemish from the North. That's because there really is no such a thing as a "French ethnicity", since the so-called natural French are actually a mix of many different ethnicities (mostly Gallo-Romanic, but also Frankish like the Flemings, celtic, basque and many more). Yes my cultural heritage is French and that is more important than the language or the ethnicity. --WhiteEcho (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously a difference between ethnically French and French-speaking. Some of the Swiss are French-speaking, for example. There are also Italian-speaking and German-speaking Swiss, but they aren't ethnically Italian or ethnically German, respectively. I could give various other examples. Gringo300 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to be careful with the term "Québécquois" when you use it. For one it is a fairly new term that didn't exist until the 1960s, so identifying people of the past before that period is incorrect. Also, even using the term today isn't completely accurate, because the term is connected with favoring sovereignty, so those identifying as "Québécquois" are typically implying support to some degree for Quebec autonomy. 14 November 2009 (UTC)

just an observation

Not one to know the official definition but i reached this page from a link of a Frenchman living in France with American Heritage (Quentin Westberg) and the first thing it says on the page is that a French American must be someone French living in America. Maybe clarify this so it includes the other way around? 69.141.50.184 (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations?

It would be nice to get some citations into this article. Ratagonia 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin Vaisse's opinion

This relative absence of French-American political and social unity helps to explain anti-French sentiment in the United States. French historian Justin Vaïsse has proposed that an important cause of overtly expressed public hostility toward France in the United States is the small number of Americans of direct French descent. While he acknowledges that this is not the direct cause of anti-French sentiments, he argues that it explains why these sentiments can be expressed publicly, without being seen as a gross violation of political correctness. Vaïsse contends that by comparison, the public display of such sentiments towards other ethnic groups or nationalities would be met by strong disapproval. He proposes that as France has no powerful and organised lobby to defend it, it is socially and politically acceptable in the United States to express negative sentiments of the French.

Just to answer, I've read before that the proportion of french descendant in the US is way higher than thought because as the french colonized the New World at the same time as the Brits but got outnumbered pretty quickly, they were mixed into the mainstream america. However it's true that since most of them lost traces of their heritage no lobby exists nor defends them as they don't represent or try to represent. Abdelkweli 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be some truth in this; as America has been traditionally linked to Britain, anti-French views about the British, which may be from centuries-old conflicts, may be echoed here as well. However it is likely that at least some anti-French sentiment has arisen due to anti-American sentiment expressed by the French as well. Further, as the two countries speak different languages, this has likely helped to create a barrier of perceived differences between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are we really kidding here? The whole reason why it is acceptable (and even encouraged) to ridicule them is because they are white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.12.127 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Chase Smith's French American Heritage

Please see and possible addition to list of political persons:

Margaret Chase Smith's Franco-American Heritage

http://www.fawi.net/ezine/vol3no2/SmithgoesFranco.html

Rheta10 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)RJCRobbins

There are many other French Americans that could be listed, including the wrestler Triple H or of course Stephen Colbert. Brett Favre, well, why not. --WhiteEcho (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Development of this article

There are many ways in which this article could be further developed. However, based on its current contents, it is very comparable to Hispanic and Latino Americans. Both deal with American minorities who came from a variety of different countries/regions (Francophone and Hispanophone countries). Since Hispanic and Latino Americans is more developed, I suggest we use it as a template for the present article.

While most national groups among the Hispanic and Latino Americans have distinct names, it is not so for "French" Americans and I guess we will have to resort to disambiguation pages. As far as I know, the main groups are:

• Directly from Europe
  • Huguenot Americans (oldest settled group of all)
  • French Americans (i.e., straight from post-1789 France)
  • French-Swiss Americans (if they were ever an identifiable group, which I am not sure of)
  • French-Belgian Americans (same)
• From the Americas
  • French-Canadian Americans (from Canada/Quebec)
  • Acadian/Cajun Americans (from Acadia)
  • Louisiana Creole people (from the Caribbeans/Louisiana)

We could also cite the many Americans who are French by ancestry and/or culture and language who came from regions colonized by the French in Africa. However I do not know if they were identified as "French" by Americans. -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The American census bureau characterizes all of these as French American because many of these groups are too small to be significant. French Canadians in the U.S. are well documented on the page deficated to them. These groups can all be dealt with on this page, with appropriate links to other articles as necessary. --soulscanner (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain who you mean by "all these". I presume you mean that other than French Canadian and Cajun, the US Census Bureau only provides Ancestry information[1] on the "French", or else the country of origin ("Belgian" or "Swiss" or whatever). Is this what you meant? In any case, like you said, these groups are probably small and listed under some other category. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions to the Infobox

Additions or changes are welcome to the Infobox, however most of the recent changes had to be removed or reverted for several reasons.

1. People should not be added to the infobox unless French ancestry is documented in their articles. People with "french sounding names" may not have actual documented French ancestry, and it is important that any claims made are sourced. All of the people currently on the list, as of this writing, have documented French ancestry noted in their main Wikipedia articles. If you are going to make additions or changes to the list, please be certain that the Wikipedia article of the person you are adding has documented French ancestry. If the sources exist, but are not noted in that article, feel free to add the sources and the information to the main article before adding them to the infobox.
2. The list needs to be maintained at a reasonable number of entries. The idea is to give a general overview of some well-known French Americans from a variety of fields, not to list every single person at Wikipedia with a photo and documented French ancestry. The list should probably not be more than 6 persons; and it should represent a wide array of people from different times and different fields. The list right now has 1 athlete, 1 author, 1 military person, and 3 actors. It may be better to find people from other fields besides acting rather than to expand the list with more actors, or to replace people from other fields with more actors. I will, when I have the time, look for a wider representation of notable French Americans, but lets use that principal to decide who should stay and who should go from the list. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed Johnny Depp from the infobox (fine by me, see above) so to bring this up to a well balanced six, I added E. I. du Pont to it. He fits a new category, so I thought it appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Americans of French Canadian origins are NOT French Americans, they are Canadian Americans

Americans of Canadian origin should not be considered as French Americans even if they come from French speaking parts of Canada, because in any case they would be Canadian Americans, that is why I have allowed myself to correct some parts of the article of French Americans which incorrectly or falsely stated that French Americans included both Americans of French and Canadian origin when it should only include Americans of French (from France, not Canada) origins.

Why are Americans of French-Canadian ancestry not considered French American? Is there a difference between the French who colonised Canada in the 17th century and those who came to Louisiana in the 18th century? Both groups of settlers were from France, ergo an American who has ancestors who both colonised Canada as well as the United States are indeed French-Americans seeing as France is the common denominator. P. S. It would help a lot if you signed your name.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not write the above unsigned paragraph, but I can give you my opinion. It really is a question of the meaning ascribed to French. There is ambiguity in the word French: it can mean from France specifically or more generally of French culture, from anywhere the "civilization" of France was transplanted; The same goes for Spanish or English of course. Luckily, when one means all Spanish people, not just those from Spain itself, we can say Hispanic. The only equivalents (to my knowledge) of this for French or English are "French-speaking" (or francophone) and "English-speaking" (or anglophone). But they are insufficient to describe all French Americans as not all French Americans could be said to be French-speaking. So there is no precise word that compares with Hispanic.

Basically, yes, there is a difference between the French who colonized what was then Canada and is now Québec, and those who colonized Louisiana, and those who colonized Acadia. In the case of Louisiana, it is in fact a mix of people directly from France, Quebec and slaves from African. Later came the deportees of Acadia.

As you mentioned, the French that came to Quebec arrived in the 17th and 18th century. The 17th century settlers of Acadia came from different regions of France than those who settled Québec, in a time when France was a Kingdom comprised of various provinces where the French language was not necessarily the language of the people. In the towns of France, people tended to speak more French than in the country, and at least for Québec it is clear that the settlers actually tended to come from the urban areas.

On the history of the French language in Louisiana : http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/louisiane-2historique.htm

On the history of the French language in Québec : http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/histfrnqc.htm

On the founding immigrants of Quebec, my draft: Origines ethniques des Québécois

Bonne lecture! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is still wrong to me. By including French Canadian Americans as French Americans, then the term French American should be used only as a linguistic identity term, not an ethnic one, since most if not all French Canadians and French Canadian Americans don't consider themselves French at all even if their grandparents came from France and/or speak French. And if this is a linguistic term, then it should include other people from French speaking countries (i.e. many African countries) who emigrated to the USA and their descendants in that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.72.210 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tha vast majority of French Canadians' ancestors immigrated to Canada from Normandy and Brittany in the 17th-century, however, they are still French by ethnicity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On removing Jim Carrey in favor of Jack Kerouac

I returned Kerouac to the list. Kerouac comes from French Canadian ancestry as well, so that removes the objection that the list is somehow exclusing a French Canadian; and since there are already several entertainers on the list (Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie) and the list was lacking an author, Kerouac seems a better choice. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles

Parts of the article had little or no connection to the topic of the French-Americans...for example, Indian names of places or various inventions from France that made their way to the U.S. like the bicycle. I added some actual coverage of especially of the New England area (where the map shows most of the FA actually live). Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be two sections

You know, to be fair, there should be a section on French Canadian Americans and one on French Americans. The two are not the same. From the middle of the 17th century, Canadiens had already become very different to Frenchmen. Even during the seven years war, the Canadien Governor Vaudreuil did not get along with the French General Montcalm, who did not like Canadiens, and who often did not want to use them in battle. Then came the French revolution, and they became very different, more different than a German versus a Frenchman. The language also changed, because the Revolutionary guards did not want to continue speaking the language of the beheaded King and Marie Antoinette. To this day, Canadiens and Frenchmen do not like each other that much. Since most Franco-Americans are of Canadien decent, you should have a separate article. --142.169.118.147 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

that's a very good point and I agree there should be two articles. The number of French who permanently immigrated after 1789 is not large (not counting the temporary refugees like Talleyrand). In 1910 there were 70,000 people born in France living in the USA.Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Samuel de Champlain who named Vermont, was permanent in the sense that he not only founded Canada, but died there. Only his heart went back to France to his lover! Cavalier de Lasalle, who named Lousiana, met an unhappy ending, and died in present day Texas. Father Jacques Marquette, who was the first to put Wisconsin on the map, not only founded Sault Sainte Marie in Michigan, but also founded La Pointe, Wisconsin, and did live there for some time. La Vérendrye was a Canadien and not French, so were the Lemoyne brothers, Pierre d'Iberville and

Bienville. But I like what you did and I thank you! So, if you agree with me about having two separate articles, one for French Canadian Americans and one for French Americans, would you help me put it together. This is where it would become interesting and more to the point, especially when you mention the French Huguenots. On one side, you would have the French Canadian Americans which would include: Canadiens, Acadians, Cayuns, and Québécois who immigrated to the states and became Franco-Americans. On the other side, you would have the French that came to the thirteen British colonies, like Dupont, Paul Revere, Peter Faneuil, the Huguenots, and the French that came during and after the French revolution. You would therefore have a more precise picture of what went on. Now, it is all together as if Irish Americans and English Americans were all one. What do you think? Can we do it? --142.169.118.147 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

those explorers are always called Canadians--never Americans. Yes I agree we can do a new article. They should be named "Franco Americans" (which will be new but covering the folks x-Canada)and "French Americans" (which is this article), I suggest.Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent! I agree with that. When you read past discussions, it always surfaces and becomes an irritant. How can we get this started and split the two once and for all? --142.169.118.147 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Canadiens were separate from France for a long time. Ukraine is now an independent country, but Ukrainians do not like to be referred to as Russians, even though they were a part of Russia and the Soviet Union for a long time. --142.169.118.147 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

lets wait a couple days fior other editors to comment. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good idea, let's give it some time and see! Thanks again! Nice to meet you and talk to you! I am Franco American by the way from Lewiston, Maine! (hahaha) --142.169.118.147 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree! The two groups were both French, spoke the same language, practised the same customs. It would be like having two separate articles on English-Americans whose ancestors had immigrated prior to 1707, and British-Americans, for those whose ancestors immigrated after the Act of Union in 1707. There is no way you can say French-Canadians and the French are as different as the Irish and English are to one another. Many of the French who settled in what is now the United States were Canadians, while some were direct immigrants from France; however, they are both part of the French diaspora. I have an example in my own lineage. One of my ancestors was a French-Canadian from Quebec who settled in Louisiana in about 1750. He married a girl who was born in New Orleans, the daughter of two French immigrants from Paris. How did my Canadian ancestor differ from my New Orleans ancestress apart from the fact that her parents were both born in Paris while his four grandparents had all been born in various regions of France: Poitou, Maine, Picardy, and Paris. They were both born in a French colony under the French flag, subjects of the French King!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn brings up a good suggestion: all the French colonials pre 1789 should be in one article, and the French who arrived after 1789 in a second one. The second group spoke French but was secular, modern, middle class and had little to do with the first group, which was traditional and Catholic. Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested such a thing; please do not put words into my mouth. The idea that French-Americans should be divided by the year 1789 is absurd. Do we divide Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, based on specific years that figured largely in their respective nations' history?! So how did the French become genetically different following the storming of the Bastile?!!!!!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

genetics has nothing to do with it. There are two cultures, and the immigrants before 1789 belonged to one, and those afterwards belonged to another. they despised each other and did not mingle. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where despising each other comes into this. Perhaps a parallel for this is the Scottish Americans and Scots-Irish American articles. The former being those who emigrated to the US directly from Scotland and the latter being those who emigrated to Ulster and generations later to the US. Jack forbes (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Northerners and Southerners also despise each other but both are still American, no? BTW, I had a friend in Los Angels from Montreal; her mother was French-Canadian and her dad an immigrant directly from France. So you see, how your outlandish claims carry no water, Rjenson?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not divide Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, BUT we do distinguish Hispanic Americans from Spanish Americans, not to mention between American and British despite the common heritage of language, law and religion. There is only one Italy, one Germany, one Poland and numerous expatriates, but there are several Spanish-speaking nations, English-speaking nations and French-speaking nations. In the French language, when we mean all that is French in the wideness possible sense, we do not say "français" because the word tends to refer specifically to hexagonal France and the people from that place, just like Spanish means Spain first and not "all that came from Spain, even the distinct nations that sprung from it in America". The Francophonie, the organization of all countries that share the heritage of the French language and French civilization surely would not agree to extend "French" beyond actual France.

1) French American is inherently ambiguous. Since Wikipedia cannot arbitrarily resolve ambiguity from words, we can only look how English-speaking scholars deal with the concept of francophone as distinct from French, in the most widely understood sense of "That country with the Eiffel tower, croissant and baguettes in it", sense under which neither Quebec, Acadia, Louisiana, or Haiti could ever possibly fit.

2) Franco American is (as far as I know) used more often than French American to convey a meaning comparable to Hispanic American.

3) French Canadian American is not only ambiguous, it is misleading because the meaning of the word Canada has changed so much since the Conquest of a country by that name in 1760. Today, and since 1867, Canada is a federal Dominion of all the post-1783 British American Provinces and territories. One such Province, today (and since 1867) called Quebec, happens to be all that is left in terms of law and institutions of the former French colony called "Canada". It is indisputable that the people of that country called themselves Canadiens and that they resisted a long time the attempt to rob them of their very name, but in the end it happened and they came to be known as French Canadian between 1840 and 1960. A lot of people who speak primarily English today think of French Canadian as meaning "all that is French within the borders of present-day Canada" when according to those first concerned it refers to "that people which comes from that place formerly known as Canada, today Quebec". These people today overwhelmingly call themselves Québécois, and do that since the conclusion of the Estates General of French Canada more than 40 years ago.

Contemporary Quebecers think of themselves as a nation distinct from the Acadians and the Acadians think of themselves as distinct from Quebecers. That thing was settled in the 19th century when they chose to give themselves distinct national symbols all the while collaborating on everything they really had in common. There is nothing surprising there as the same phenomenon exists in Latin America, where several nationalities came out of a common colonization. The national distinctions among the Latinos do not prevent Latin Americans from uniting as Spanish speakers, together with Spain even, when it is time to promote or defend their common heritage. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Ukrainians Russians?

I agree whole heartedly with Mathieugp and Ryensen. Canada and France are separate countries just as Australia and Great Britain are. It would be ludicrous to place Australians and Englishmen together just because at one point they came from the British isles. An Australian immigrating to the United States is of Australian decent not of English decent. Some Australians came from Ireland as well. As for Canadiens or French Canadians, most have native decent and even when most immgrated to the US between 1860 and 1830, they had already been several generations in Canada before immigrating. To say they were French is incorrect. Do we place Norman decendants with Norwegians because their ancesters came from Norway or Bretons with the Welsh because they once came from the British Isles, or even Anglo-Saxons with Germany because they once came from that country. The best example is present day Ukraine, the poor Ukrainians were for a long time subject to Russian domination. They have been independent for 20 years now, but they would not want to be placed in the same category as Russian Americans for sure, even if they all speak Russian and Ukrainian. If you all want to go back in time, we all came from Adam and Eve, n'est-ce pas? So I agree with Ryensen that there should be two identities, one for Franco-Americans who immigrated either from French Canada or became part of the US because their land was taken over or bought, but who were Canadiens before, or Acadians who were deported or separated from their families by the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842. The others should be French Americans, since they came to the US from France as Frenchmen or French Huguenots. They came directly from France, not from Canada or Acadia. --66.254.46.167 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So in that case if a Frenchman boarded a ship in La Rochelle,landed in Montreal, then decided ten years later to migrate down to Louisiana, his French status is negated due to his having arrived from Canada instead of France. You are trying to deny a large segment of people with French ancestry the right to call thenselves French!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Those that are of Canadian ancestry or Acadian (Cajun) ancestry have a right not to call themselves French. One out of every Frenchmen are not from France but from Arab countries or Western Africa, and they call themselves French. 6 million foreigners live in London and they call themselves British. Fourteen generations of being Canadian and mixing with the native people is Canadian and not French. Acadians mixed with the MicMac natives and they consider themselves Acadian, not French. The majority of Canadians when ask about their ancestry, put down Canadian during the census, not French. Only in the US, does this French thing persist. As far as I am concern, everyone living in North and South America is American. Just like any one living in Europe is European.--66.254.35.182 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jeanne Boleyn: Just to clarify my point of view on the various groups of Franco Americans (including everyone). I do not think it would be wise to do anything that would have the effect of "deny[ing] a large segment of people with French ancestry the right to call themselves French". Surely people ought to be free to identify as French if they please, whether it is because they were brought up French-speaking, or educated in French, or because of some close or distant family heritage that may or may not have been preserved. But, there are people (like me for example) who could be said to be "French" by mother tongue, by education, by family background, by ancestral background, yet certainly never in their life identified as French (Français) because they identify as Quebecers (Québécois), and Quebecers are to the French as the Americans are to the British. "Two nations separated by the same language." Two nations separated by over 250 years of unshared history and culture despite a common language. I do not deny the French immigrants who landed in Quebec somewhere in the 18th century and started my whole family tree, but I notice that this tree is made up of a majority of natives of Quebec for over 10 generations. It is my ancestors from Quebec who built the society in which I was born and it is the culture of that place that I absorbed growing up. That culture can be accurately named "French" as much as American or Australian cultures can be said to be "English". Do you understand what I mean?

In conclusion, all I mean to say is that if we want to inform people accurately, we should consider shaping this article along the lines of Hispanic and Latino Americans. We could additionally have an article like Spanish American for actual French American (in the sense of those who immigrated straight from France). -- Mathieugp (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Franco American

I have lived in New England all my life, and never did I hear the words French American. The 6 million Franco Americans that live there, because their Great Grandparents came from Canada, have always referred to themselves as Franco Americans. They established Little Canadas not little Frances. To make it fair, if you cannot split the site, why not rename it Franco American and have French American redirected there. The vast majority are of French Canadian decent and not of French decent. French American sounds like someone who just got off the plane from Paris to live in the USA. Whoever started it, made a mistake. I am sure that Mathieu can arrange the transition. After all, he is the KING!--142.169.118.147 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable proposal. The devil is in the details. Would "Franco American" includes Acadians, Québécois, as well as of course "French Americans"? Do we include French Creole (e.g. Haitians) as well?--Work permit (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with the name Franco-American. I used to hear that phrase all the time when I was growing up. I can recall being asked by a teacher whether or not I was Franco-American (obviously, due to my name being Jeanne), to which I replied that my great-grandmother was French.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For now, I would include everyone, except I don't know how French Creoles fit in, since they originally came from Africa and then Haiti. Maybe they should be Creole Americans, because they speak a very different language altogether. I speak French and I cannot understand them. --142.169.118.147 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are also white Creoles in Louisiana descended from the original French, German, and Spanish settlers. General Pierre G. T. Beauregard was a white Creole. Read the article: Louisiana Creole people. Most people nowadays use the term creole for a mixed-race person, but Creole has different meanings as you will see in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

typical english bias

picture caption reads: "Many French-Americans are descended from the casket girls and comfort women" which in other words means they are sons of prostitutes. typical. some arses really need to be kicked. Cliché Online (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The casket girls were for the most part like the King's Duaghters who were sent to Canada in the 17th century; that is to say, orphan girls from convents. There were many prostitutes among the comfort women, however, that is not the case for the casket girls. This comes from a descendant of a King's Daughter. Now, am I still under imminent threat of an arse-kicking?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on sidebar

I am working on a "series of articles"-type sidebar in my drafts section:

• User:Mathieugp/drafts/Franco Americans

It is a inspired by Template:African American topics sidebar, Template:Hispanic and Latino Americans and other similar ones.

Now would be the time to give me some feedback. Merci beaucoup! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)