[Youenn]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You mean that the Bourgognons have never been a distinct identity, that they never formed one, else? or just that it doesn't compare to the Breton for some... [explain] reason?

I mean the Bourguignons are culturally french, they surely had a distinct identity before but I think it was more an identity based on a state, like the Luxembourgers.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes, of course, there's an evident specificity, but Breton nationalism is often based on a discover of Breton history : "la découverte ou l'ignorance". It is an important element.

When I read the book of Morvan, I didn't have the same feeling about his famous sentence. History is an important element but language is also important too.

You are wrong here : the Langue d'oïl is used in Eastern Brittany by the people since the Middle Ages. It is true that "Gallo" means "French", but they are considered Bretons by everyone nowadays. But, in the same time, you should recognize that they speak a Gallo-Romance language natively.

The problem is : What's the border ?
You surely will say the linguistic border of Plouha/Vannes. Why stop at this limit ? Because this limit dates to 50 years ago, it was the beginning of the mass media (radio, tv) in french and the beginning of full frenchization ? But if this beginning existed today, the border will be more in the west and I will become a "gallo" and my friends from Guilvinec or Brest will be the only "true breton"...
I know who used this border to his advantage; I will not fall in this trap.

At least for some eastern Bretons (or "Gallo-Bretons"), it seems to be. If they don't want to learn a language (Breton) which is not part of their own History.

I will not blame them but like I said I've never meet one of them in movement, political or cultural.

I don't really understand what you mean here, but if the "Gallos" spoked a Celtic/Armorican language close of Breton, it was also true for all the Western French people living near the Channel (Normandy, Maine, Anjou...). And those people are not Bretons, of course. Here, History and Geography play an important role in identity.

Contrary to Normandy, Maine or Anjou, the Breton migration in eastern Brittany was much more important and the Breton language was spoken in Eastern Brittany.

This fascination for exotism and foreign cultures, especially in Brittany, has, of course, nothing to do with an ethnic specificity. You can see the same phenomenom everywhere in France.

It is true that some regions are more concerned (Brittany especially) but, and I am sorry to say that, it seems that it is mostly due to the weight and particularity of the Catholic religion in Western France and its political form, the Christian democracy.
Because the thing is that when this region became less and less Christian and more secular, during the 60's, this Catholic tradition has transformed into a specific sort of "humanist" secular tradition. This is why Bretons are known for being tolerant people, anti-extremists, politically moderate, etc...

Indeed, this observation already was admitted many times even by a catholic traditionalist in Adsav forum.

Anyway, what's linked to this thread ?

Yes, that's why I would have rather advocate a Breiz-Izel nationalism in those times. But it's too late know.

Well, It's too late and before everything I've never heard people tried to make something like this.

Originally Posted by Carnyx

First, one cannot defend or save what is clearly agonizing.

Why agonizing ? Do you speak about language ? The situation of breton language is the same than the situation of the Irish language at the beginning of XX century.
It sounds like a bad excuse to abandon Brittany. But after all there always is a good reason to join French; today it's against the migrants, yesterday it was against jews and the communists, etc.

And actually if France is not agonizing, I don't know the situation...

Last, if your only alternative to cosmopolitism and multi-culturalism-racialism is primitivism, it worries me.

primitivism :

n.

1. The condition or quality of being primitive.
2. The style characteristic of a primitive artist.
3.
1. A belief that it is best to live simply and in a natural environment.
2. A belief that the acquisitions of civilization are evil or that the earliest period of human history was the best.


Either you don't read my posts since the beginning, or you think I'm really a primitivist and it will be very hard according to my hobbies. But like I think it's a bad faith, I don't prefer really reply.

We need a powerful Europe with strong nations, not a conglomerate of microscopic tribes with a contempt for each others.

So why French never say this to Irish, Croatians, Baltic people, etc. ? I'm disappointed.

When I see anti-communautarism, preference to a "good arab" to a "white trash family" and used the same term than the leftists and others jacobins (tribalism or primitivism) ... I don't see a destiny for French except a important mixing with all colonised and migrants people like it's already the case today.

Progressively, nationalist in England are abandoning the Britishism, I saw on Stirpes Russians have a more ethnic vision of their state.
When will the French understand that a multicultural state is as bad for them as it is for us ?