4 ms·
I think the meaning here is that French identity has been formed slowly over time while interacting with the outside. I would be surprised if a group of academi
by plafl 9y ago
I think the meaning here is that French identity has been formed slowly over time while interacting with the outside. I would be surprised if a group of academics, specially if French, denied the existence of French culture. I suppose some French people find disgusting the idea of having much more in common with a contemporary German (for example) than with a medieval French. I'm not French nor do I follow French politics so just guessing by extrapolating what I know from my own country.
- nawre 9y agoThis is not the main thesis of the book though. I do not blame you because the article strawman hard on the book's opponents at the same time it does a poor job at extracting the actual thesis from the book. No one says that French culture has been created at a discrete point in history, and since then never changed. This is the biggest strawman of this article. They wish their enemies were that stupid. In fact, it is known that France is a marvelous mix of celtic, latin and germanic influence. The criticism stems from the book's anachronisms and obvious Multikulti undertones. It defines France, not as an entity in itself, but as one that solely makes sense in its interaction with others. Nothing is French anymore, and the so-called french culture is just a collection of sophisticated anecdotes. It's nothing more than a poor attempt at taking away whatever is left to the French: their sense of culture and history.
- plafl 9y agoYes, I was commenting on what I understood about the book review, not on the book itself, which I have not read.