3 ms·

> 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 o

> 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

> 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.