ABOUT “THE ECONOMIST” POINT OF VIEW

It does work likewise, with individuals and peoples. Infancy trauma memory is engraved in indelible manner in the unconscious. And there are two laws on which everyone should meditate: 

1°) this unconscious memory is proportional to trauma intensity,
2°) intellectual development (individual or collective) is conversely proportional to this memory impact on behaviour. The weaker the intellectual development the stronger this unconscious memory would affect the behaviour. The result is an inferiority complex which, often, may activate an aggressive attitude (see Islam fundamentalists).

If individual memory doesn’t last more than a simple life, peoples memory survived thanks to experience and innate passed on, from generation to generation, for a surprising long time (thousand years). So all peoples who, once, have been dominated (and this did happen, one day or another, to alls) will keep this domination complex in memory. All the more acute since this domination has been traumatic.
The immemorial Polish hate for Russian or German peoples is a testimony. Conversely there is no resentment from Gallic peoples (the ones who became French) versus Roman peoples (actually Italians) because this colonization has been soft and advantageous to the colonized peoples.

I often question myself about the outburst of popular English news paper against France and French peoples for any pretext. Last was the article by “the Economist” about French economy and previous the pictures of Kate MIDDLETON (princess of Cambridge) naked nipple taken in France by French “paparazzi”.

No question about what’s go wrong with French economy. We “Omnibus edition”, are hardly critics about it (see our articles). Particularly toward previous French president and his policy. But England is not in better shape. Probably worse. Why “the Economist” didn’t make the balance between both ?
 

We alls (French and British peoples) have tendency to forget that England has been, a long time ago, a former French colony for, at least, two centuries following the duke of Normandy conquest (1066). His successors “Plantagenêts” (a typical French family name) sharing their time between France and England.

As a consequence of the conquest the Saxon peoples were brutally deprived of their lands to the benefit of the invaders who, in addition, imposed their French language and their French laws. See the popular Robin hood myth, the brave Saxon who resist to brutal king John (Plantagenêt), unworthy brother of Richard heart of lion, who... never set foot in England !

And today the only ones to be proud of their French origins are the oldest families of the English nobility who’s name are still French and who are looking, with a bit of condescension, to those recent incoming “Hanover’s”, cousins of Saxons, both origins from poorly civilised Germany, to be set, by chance, on the English throne.

And if the Windsor’s (their brand new name) are so popular in England it’s, mainly, because they have no links with France and the ancient masters of England. Moreover their blood being gradually mixed up with commoner Anglo-Saxon blood (see Kate Middleton) to be melt into the ancestral Saxon community, now in command.

This has been the main reason for perpetual wars lasting between the two countries, the revenge to humiliation. But after a five hundred years war we have now, already, a two hundred years peace, not enough to get rid of past. And weapons have been replaced by insults, such as “the Economist” article, which has to be considered some sort of improvement.