2 ms·

> the Dreyfusards who defended reason and believed that France’s identity was defined by the abstract principles of equality and liberty. This makes sense as l

> the Dreyfusards who defended reason and believed that France’s identity was defined by the abstract principles of equality and liberty. This makes sense as long as you don't think about it for longer than 30 seconds. Is every country, every person, striving towards the abstract principles of equality and liberty then "French"? Did being French hold no meaning when they were still a monarchy? Was everyone on the wrong side of the French revolution then not French, but some other nationality? And is Jewish identity likewise meaningless outside of a commitment to some abstract principles (and if so, which ones?), or do they, unlike the French, get to define it with other criteria, such as kinship and shared history?

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Did being French hold no meaning when they were still a monarchy? Absolutely none. People were first and foremost from their region and each region had its own laws, customs and often language. What French view as the French identity very much is a post-revolutionary idea which was mercilessly spread through the eradication of regional cultures and languages and the standard curriculum by public schools during the nineteenth century.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > What French view as the French identity very much is a post-revolutionary idea which was mercilessly spread through the eradication of regional cultures and languages and the standard curriculum by public schools during the nineteenth century. While there's no doubt that unspeakable horrors were done in the name of forging a collective narrative later on, it's also wrong to claim that's the origin of the french identity. During the _états généraux_ people who had a strong regional bond also sought to collaborate and build alliances outside of their group (e.g. the _club Breton_ [1], which grew into the _club des Jacobins_). Collaboration and common interests forged a new identity overlapping existing identities. If this process hadn't happened, there would never have been new revolutions happening simultaneously across France in the 19th century, way before the 3rd republic's schools opened. That process is pretty similar to post-revolution US colonies growing (and figuring out the details, and, at times, arguing about it) a new sense of common future on top of their existing independent identity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Breton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Breton
- tarakat 4y ago
  Such a funny coincidence that Native American, Indian, Chinese, African, or Jewish identity are never attacked this way. They somehow remain legitimate and valid, despite being composed of smaller groups that changed through history. Nobody bats an eye when they organize based on shared history and interests. But god forbid the French do it, then all of a sudden they have nothing in common, and the only identity they are allowed, if any, is the most Balkanized and irrelevant one.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    I don’t understand your comment. The French obviously shares an identity nowadays. It’s a very modern fabrication however. I mostly disagree with the commentator explaining that it originated in the États généraux. Bourgeois had common interests but the idea that it leads to a common identity is itself a fabrication of the third republic from my point of view. The nineteenth century revolutions are mostly Parisian affairs (then again it’s fairly easy to convincingly argue that Paris is France). The point is that this shared identity didn’t exist before the revolution and the nationalist push used to justify waring with Germany under the third republic is mostly responsible for spreading it. France as a unified state is a very recent development anyway. The kings were fairly weak before Louis XIV.
pyrale 4y ago
> This makes sense as long as you don't think about it for longer than 30 seconds. Is every country, every person, striving towards the abstract principles of equality and liberty then "French"? According to a famous quote attributed to Jefferson, yes. It's up to you to adhere to that poetic licence. That being said, the quote you're commenting doesn't claim that these values are exclusively french, merely that it would be unlike France's identity to deviate from these values. > Did being French hold no meaning when they were still a monarchy? Was everyone on the wrong side of the French revolution then not French, but some other nationality? You're building a straw man out of the claim. If someone says that the US society is profoundly democratic, that doesn't mean that the whole population was replaced somewhere between 1775 and 1783. Simply that some events alter and shape the identity of a society. And I believe that there is no discussion that the French revolution was a defining moment for the French society. > do they, unlike the French That point is pretty weird. Are you claiming that jews can't also be french? That's a pretty extreme point, usually linked to regressive nationalist ideologies.
- tarakat 4y ago
  > Are you claiming that jews can't also be french? Okay, so Jews can be Jewish and also French, since French is something anyone can be. And the French can be French and also... what? French identity can be claimed by anyone, but you shy away from applying that logic to the Jewish identity.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > French identity can be claimed by anyone, but you shy away from applying that logic to the Jewish identity. This reads like you're trying to have an argument about it, and I'm not really interested in having it. I'm sure you can understand how different groups of people have different criteria about who is a member and who isn't.
    - tarakat 4y ago
      And do other groups, besides the French, that have member criteria other than allegiance to abstract principles, also "deify unreason", as that quote put it? You didn't have such a laissez-faire attitude to member criteria when it came to deconstructing the French identity. > you're trying to have an argument about it, and I'm not really interested in having it You were hoping your absurd near-total negation of French identity would go unchallenged.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> Did being French hold no meaning when they were still a monarchy? Absolutely none. People were first and foremost from their region and each region had its own laws, customs and often language. What French view as the French identity very much is a post-revolutionary idea which was mercilessly spread through the eradication of regional cultures and languages and the standard curriculum by public schools during the nineteenth century.

pyrale 4y ago
> What French view as the French identity very much is a post-revolutionary idea which was mercilessly spread through the eradication of regional cultures and languages and the standard curriculum by public schools during the nineteenth century. While there's no doubt that unspeakable horrors were done in the name of forging a collective narrative later on, it's also wrong to claim that's the origin of the french identity. During the _états généraux_ people who had a strong regional bond also sought to collaborate and build alliances outside of their group (e.g. the _club Breton_ [1], which grew into the _club des Jacobins_). Collaboration and common interests forged a new identity overlapping existing identities. If this process hadn't happened, there would never have been new revolutions happening simultaneously across France in the 19th century, way before the 3rd republic's schools opened. That process is pretty similar to post-revolution US colonies growing (and figuring out the details, and, at times, arguing about it) a new sense of common future on top of their existing independent identity. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Breton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Breton
tarakat 4y ago
Such a funny coincidence that Native American, Indian, Chinese, African, or Jewish identity are never attacked this way. They somehow remain legitimate and valid, despite being composed of smaller groups that changed through history. Nobody bats an eye when they organize based on shared history and interests. But god forbid the French do it, then all of a sudden they have nothing in common, and the only identity they are allowed, if any, is the most Balkanized and irrelevant one.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  I don’t understand your comment. The French obviously shares an identity nowadays. It’s a very modern fabrication however. I mostly disagree with the commentator explaining that it originated in the États généraux. Bourgeois had common interests but the idea that it leads to a common identity is itself a fabrication of the third republic from my point of view. The nineteenth century revolutions are mostly Parisian affairs (then again it’s fairly easy to convincingly argue that Paris is France). The point is that this shared identity didn’t exist before the revolution and the nationalist push used to justify waring with Germany under the third republic is mostly responsible for spreading it. France as a unified state is a very recent development anyway. The kings were fairly weak before Louis XIV.

pyrale 4y ago

> This makes sense as long as you don't think about it for longer than 30 seconds. Is every country, every person, striving towards the abstract principles of equality and liberty then "French"? According to a famous quote attributed to Jefferson, yes. It's up to you to adhere to that poetic licence. That being said, the quote you're commenting doesn't claim that these values are exclusively french, merely that it would be unlike France's identity to deviate from these values. > Did being French hold no meaning when they were still a monarchy? Was everyone on the wrong side of the French revolution then not French, but some other nationality? You're building a straw man out of the claim. If someone says that the US society is profoundly democratic, that doesn't mean that the whole population was replaced somewhere between 1775 and 1783. Simply that some events alter and shape the identity of a society. And I believe that there is no discussion that the French revolution was a defining moment for the French society. > do they, unlike the French That point is pretty weird. Are you claiming that jews can't also be french? That's a pretty extreme point, usually linked to regressive nationalist ideologies.

tarakat 4y ago
> Are you claiming that jews can't also be french? Okay, so Jews can be Jewish and also French, since French is something anyone can be. And the French can be French and also... what? French identity can be claimed by anyone, but you shy away from applying that logic to the Jewish identity.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > French identity can be claimed by anyone, but you shy away from applying that logic to the Jewish identity. This reads like you're trying to have an argument about it, and I'm not really interested in having it. I'm sure you can understand how different groups of people have different criteria about who is a member and who isn't.
  - tarakat 4y ago
    And do other groups, besides the French, that have member criteria other than allegiance to abstract principles, also "deify unreason", as that quote put it? You didn't have such a laissez-faire attitude to member criteria when it came to deconstructing the French identity. > you're trying to have an argument about it, and I'm not really interested in having it You were hoping your absurd near-total negation of French identity would go unchallenged.