" I am not necesarily using "Gallic" as a synonym for "French". "
Hmm, didn't said "to say that France is not of Gallic culture is a mistruth". To me it means that you consider France to be of Gallic culture, and so that since France culture is called "French", you meant that "Gallic" means "French".
" You seem to equate the transformation of the Celts of Gaul into Romans, and then think of these new people as the "French". "
The transormation (and mix) of Gauls with Roman culture (and people), didn't made them French, of course not ! It made them GALLO-ROMANS, the kind of romans of the various provinceS called under the names "Gallia".
" the people of Gaul did not become "French" until centuries after the Frankish conquest "
Yes, you're right ! The birth of the french nation and French people is a long processus that began when the political construction that coresponded to the romance territories of the Frankish kingdom were separated after the division of the Charlemagne's empire. But since then a long time was necessary to see the formation of the french identity as we know it - And the processus is continuing.
" "French" means "of Francia", or simply, "Frank". "
NO ! Waht a semantic (and historic) confusion! "French" means "of France". "Franks" mean from the germanic tribe called "Franks", they created a frankish kingdom in wich they were a ruling minority. Of course the words are related, but they doesn't have the same meanings. The same way "Catalan" doesn't mean "goth" but from the region called "catalunia", even if the words "Catalunia" and "goth" are related.
" The name of the people of France is a direct derivative of "Frank". "
Right, but with a complete different meaning.
" In Charlemagne's day, centuries after the fall of Western Roman Empire, the native inhabitants of Charlemagne's domain in Gaul were called "Gauls". "
Charlemagne couldn't have a domain in Gaul since Gaul was not existing anymore. the subjcts of Charlemagne were diverse peoples, some were germanic tribes at the east of the Rhine, and others were Romance speakers msotly descending of Gallo-Romans.
" How many of them were "pure Gauls"? Again, you seem to misinterpret what I am saying. By the 500s A.D. - 800s A.D., "Gaul" no longer meant the same thing as it did before. A "Gaul" was merely a person, a native, or citizen of Gaul, whether he be black, blue, purple, pink, grey, green, orange, or yellow. "
I don't how Anglophones historians use (or misuse) the word "Gaul" or "gallic" in English but in French, we could not be confuse : The Gauls are the pre-roman celtic peoples. After Romanization we speak about Gallo-Romans, not Gaul because these people are not of Celtic (Gallic) culture.
" Just as today, the term "Mexican" does not necessarily mean an Aztec/Mexica indian, but any number of things, ranging from a Spanish criollo to a Mestizo, to a native. This is because Mexico and its people have been transformed. "
How Mexico people could have been transformed after Spanish colonisation since Mexico didn't exist yet at that time ? What existed was Aztec empire, not Mexico. MExican identity is born with the hispanization of natives and their mix with Spaniards; As long as Spanish was not the language we canno't speak about Mexico and Mexcians. We can speak about the Mexica people, who were native indians, but they were not MexicaN.
Calling French culture and people a "gallic" culture is a wrong as calling Mexican culture and people an "Aztec" culture.
" The people of Gaul were thouroughly mixed, particularly in the south. "
Gaul didn't existed anymore at that time, and I am not sure that the southerners were more mixed than northerners - depends with who.
" But that doesn't change the fact that they were still Gallic, and still Gauls. "
Does inhabitants of nowaday Mexico still be aztecs after Spanish colonization ?
" Maybe repeat what I am saying in your own words Fab, so I know you understood what I'm trying to say "
I understod, but I just explain that using "Gaul" to Speak about peoples of "Gallo-Roman" culture is an historic/cultural misunderstanding, at least in French language. I understand that in English you seem to like very much using the term "gallic" to speak about French things, but it is very inacurated to our ears, since we ear it as if you meant that French are a Celtic people, which we are not.
" France derives its name from the fact that, when Charlemagne's vast empire was partitioned among his sons and their successors, the domain which covered the modern borders of France, was known as "West Francia". Because of this, the name of the country eventually became "France". "
I thank you for the information but I already knew the early history of the French kingdom.
" But calling the country "France" is about as silly as calling Italy (Ostrogothia), or Spain ( Visigothia). Although, there are regions within these countries named after the Germanic settlers like Andalusia (Vandalusia), or Lombardia (Lombards), etc. "
You may find it silly but that is the way it is since centuries !
Our name is a legacy of history and legacies inside the carolingian domains herencies. Our country is now called "France" that's all. Today it is just a name, and yes it has germanic origins; The same way a lot Spanish speaker have germanic-derived names. Is it "silly" ? Will you make a petition to change the name of Catalans (name coming from "goths" - gothalunia/Catalunia), of Lombards, of Andalucians, etc. These names are just a historical testimony of what happended in the past ruling classes and does not speak about the current people and culture of these territories. Even if the name "French" derived etymologically from "Franks", today it does not refer to the same people, and they are two different words, no confusion possible. "France" and "Frankish kingdom" are two different words that doesn't reffer to the same thing and the same people.
|
