Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
Of course not. But it just happens that any origins of a French identity has as the common Gallic element.
|
Even if I don't deny that the territory of France and Gaul are very similar, France can't be only defined by the Gallic element. If so, Belgium, Netherlands, Rhinland and Switzerland should be French as well.
Francia was first the name of the territory occupied by the Franks (ie Northern Gaul). When the Frank kings (
rex Francie) conquiered the rest of the country, their Kingdom started to be called "France".
It was much later than France identified itself with Gaul.
But in my opinion, the term 'French' should first describe the ethnic French, ie Northern 'French' or people from the France d'Oil (Gallo-Romans with a Frankish substrate) :
Of course, the other Gallo-Roman peoples (Occitans, 'Arpitans'...) share a common identity with the French, and so, that's rather normal that they live in the same country and are defined as 'French'. But I also think that the specific cultures and languages of those different regions (Gascony, Provence, Savoie...) should be protected and thaught.
Morever, not all people who live in present France can be defined as Gallo-Romance people : namely the Alsatians, Flemish, Basques, Corsicans, and (Western) Bretons.
That's why I don't really consider those people to be 'French' and I think that they deserve at least an autonomous status, and, if they want to, independence.
Unfortunately, France is a Jacobin country, and I think that such a project will never achieve. And it is in fact a somehow outdated project.
Because the other problem we also need to have in mind is that France (as a whole) is now a country with a mixed population, whether we like it or not. Mix between people of different regions, but also of different countries.
Nowadays, one out of three French citizen has foreign origins.
In this context, define the French identity with ethnic terms is somewhat useless.