Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

> The book rejects the notion of a French identity that has existed from the beginning—a beginning associated with the cliché “our ancestors the Gauls”—and that has been refined over the centuries to constitute a distinct and particularly rich civilization.

Really? I'm curious what the argument is here. Do they mean it's a modern invention or mostly an imaginary/idealized concept?

I live in Canada having lived in both francophone Quebec and growing up in Ontario I believe there is a strong french identity. One they take serious care in protecting and developing even as expatriates in Canada. This as a result influences personality/psychological traits as well through things like parenting and cultural experience.

A lot of people I knew in Montreal were recent immigrants from France and to me it seemed they equally shared this identity, although they were far less likely to look up to France in a good light. Although many youths leave France to seek opportunity in Canada, and french Canadians may hold an idealized view of France, so that might be why.

This difference between angolophone vs francophone cultures is one of the reasons I had a lot of difficulty living in Montreal. The differences went well beyond language. Similar to the east vs west coast (vs south) dynamic in the US.

Whether or not being so protective of their identity/culture is a positive thing is a another matter (one I believe is self-destructive to an extent). But whether or not it exists is doesn't seem any question in my mind.

I think you're mixing cultural identity and historical identity.

Sure the first one is built on top of the second but mostly it's a by-product of society. People mostly become what they're surrounded by not because they're expert in history.

Yes, there's no question there's a French cultural identity (and one could argue the French from Europe and the French from North America are two different animals but it's a different matter), but that's not what the book is about.

The book is putting in question the French "heritage". Not the fact French people think they're French.

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.

This 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.

Yes, I was commenting on what I understood about the book review, not on the book itself, which I have not read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com