Does France deserve its name?

Yep, I agree. In Spanish, I use the term "Norte Americanos" because as a native English speaker, "Estadounidenses" sounds so artificial and ridiculous. But, what about the Canadaians? They are North Americans too.

Deutschland vs. Germany vs. Alemannia is also a very interesting topic. The German name for themselves is silly in my opinion. Alemanni in languages like French and Spanish comes from the fact that the major tribe which the Gallo and Hispano-Romans identified with Germania beyone the Rhine were the Alemanni. Most of them stayed in Germania. This name has its advantages, but so do English "Germany" and Italian "Germania", but for different reasons.

Hi LAA,

Just for the records: geographically speaking you must also include Mexico in North America. It has nothing to do with its welfare, poverty or whatever. It is just geography.


So, saying North American, is not quite complete either. I think that USA should really have an official name, as a country, in order to help the people to have an identity as a nation whitout always arising this eternal discussion about "America".

France vs. Gaul. Franks vs. Gauls. Charlemagne was a Carolingian Frank who was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on Christmans Day 800 A.D. Charlemagne brought forth a de facto mini Roman Empire centuries after the fall of Rome. Charlemagne, a Frank, finally brought some stability and order to a Western Europe that had been ravaged and pillaged for centuries by Germanic and Asiatic "barbarians". This was a very important accomplishment. Charlemagne, along with his Frankish predecessors and ancestors saved Europe from an Islamic onslaught that would have made Europe look like Turkey and Iran today. Charlemagne was a brilliant leader and administrator. He was largely responsible for the continuation of the Christian faith, and the furthering of Roman Law and language that carried Europe throught the Middle Ages. Without Charlemagne, Europe would have suffered a cruel fate. The Franks figured very prominently in European history. The Franks took on the mantle of Roman law, language, customs, and the Christian religion and therefore preserved it. And furthermore, they not only preserved those aspects of European civilization, they propagated them. No other Germanic or "barbarian" tribe came close to accomplishing that. The Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, Vandals, Lombards, Suevi, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes combined did not accomplish the great and important feats that were done by the Franks. Contrast Charlemagne with Vercingetorix, a Celtic Gaul. He was a leader. Not much compared to Charlemagne. Vercingetorix rallied many (not all!!) of the once quarreling and disunited Gauls in a hopeless and fruitless battle against Julius Caesar and his Roman legions. Vergingetorix, in his pursuit of saving his country, and his people, lost the battle and the war. Vercingetorix and all of the other Gauls combined could not stave off a powerful and determined Roman conqueror. One of the main reasons for this is that the Gauls were very quarrelsome, bickering, and disorganized. The Gauls petty tribalism and infighting is what led (partly) to their demise. Even Julius Caesar himself acknowledged this. Julius Caesar exploited Gallic disunity to his advantage. The Gauls lacked cohesion, solidarity, and vision. The Romans did not. It is difficult for me to accept that the French nation should be named after a bunch of quarreling, disunited, primitive, unsophisticated people such as the pre-Roman Gauls. The Ancient Gauls, for the aforementioned reasons do not deserve to have France named after them.

Well, Serge, everything down to Panama is technically in North America. Naming continents can be a tricky business! Why, look at Europe and Asia ... I mean Eurasia ...

Hi Uriel,

This is how America is geographically distributed:
North America: Canada, USA, Mexico.
Central America: from Guatemala to Panama. (including the Caribbean zone here)
South America: from Colombia to Argentina.

From what I see normally used is the carbbean grouped with North America (except for the Antilles, which are grouped with South America).

However Central America is not a continent, and is grouped with North America. Although it is often grouped separately from the North America.

It is for that reason that I prefer the term Estadounidenses over Norteamericanos. This new name would simply specify the name 'Americans' to only the northern half of America, instead of the whole of America. Still not precise enough in my opinion, where a name for a country should refer to that country only.

I'll use Uriel's example of Eurasia as an example. Referring to Americans as Americans is comparable to referring to the Chinese exclusively as Eurasians, as if ignoring the dozens of other nationalities in that landmass. Referring to Americans as Norteamericanos is comparable to referring to the Chinese exclusively as Asians. If you're calling the Chinese Asians, then what are you going to refer to Asians as a whole as?

"Contrast Charlemagne with Vercingetorix, a Celtic Gaul. He was a leader. Not much compared to Charlemagne. Vercingetorix rallied many (not all!!) of the once quarreling and disunited Gauls in a hopeless and fruitless battle against Julius Caesar and his Roman legions. Vergingetorix, in his pursuit of saving his country, and his people, lost the battle and the war. Vercingetorix and all of the other Gauls combined could not stave off a powerful and determined Roman conqueror. One of the main reasons for this is that the Gauls were very quarrelsome, bickering, and disorganized. The Gauls petty tribalism and infighting is what led (partly) to their demise. Even Julius Caesar himself acknowledged this. Julius Caesar exploited Gallic disunity to his advantage. The Gauls lacked cohesion, solidarity, and vision. The Romans did not. It is difficult for me to accept that the French nation should be named after a bunch of quarreling, disunited, primitive, unsophisticated people such as the pre-Roman Gauls. The Ancient Gauls, for the aforementioned reasons do not deserve to have France named after them. "

Apam,

You cannot compare pre-Roman Gaul to the Carolognian Franks. The Franks came along 500 years later, and only unified their people and the land because of preserving Roman civil administration. They adopted the culture of the Gauls and language of the Gauls, which was no longer Celtic, but Latin. Gaul was unified under a strong central government, as civilized as possible for people of antiquity, and significantly more culturally advanced than the foreign Frankish warriors. The Franks were still organized according to tribal lines, where the government was not centralized, but based on clans and their fuedal relationships. This is why you cannot compare the Celts of the B.C era, with the semi-Romanized/civilized Franks of the post-Roman era, when Charlegmange lived 800 years later. We can honor the Franks' historical military achievements, but that does not neccessitate naming a foreign people after them.

And regardless of who gave France its modern political cohesiveness and national unity, a country's name should still reflect the people who inhabit it. Should we call Mexico, Spain, because the Spanish conquered the region, and gave all of modern Mexico unity under one government? Obviously not, as that name would not reflect the people who inhabit it.

Yeah, I think of Central America as an artificial political designation, as opposed to a natural geographic designation. But I'm familiar with the three-part designation (although you might have included Chile in South American, Sergio! Poor Chileans -- red-headed stepchildren, I guess....)

I always think of Mexico as part of North America myself (the Caribbean is kind of a No-Man's Land, for some reason!), but that gets me to thinking -- I wonder why it gets lumped in with Canada and the US, and cut out of Central America? Not that I want to redraw the map or anything -- I'm just curious as to why North America gets chopped up into "North" and "Central" so arbitrarily. I'm assuming Mexicans would feel a little more kinship withtheir southern neighbors than with their northern ones.

I don't think it is a cultural or racial thing. It's just that those are the big three countries of the North American continent. The rest are excluded (Which would explain your situation with the Caribbean).

A more practical reason is that, well, if you were to put all of Canada, the Untied States, Mexico, and the Central American countries on one page of the map, there would hardly be space to write the name "El Salvador" where it corresponds to on the map, let alone the capital, borders or any major cities. Putting Central America seaparately would allow the map maker to 'zoom in' to that area only.

LAA : « And regardless of who gave France its modern political cohesiveness and national unity, a country's name should still reflect the people who inhabit it. Should we call Mexico, Spain, because the Spanish conquered the region, and gave all of modern Mexico unity under one government? Obviously not, as that name would not reflect the people who inhabit it. »

La preuve que non ! Et c'est exactement ça que tu ne parviens pas à saisir : la France est ***UNE CONSTRUCTION POLITIQUE*** par excellence. L'ethnie française n'existe pas et n'a jamais existé.

En France, la politique a préexisté à la nation. Et l'administration française est une *RÉALITÉ* bien antérieure au *CONCEPT* de peuple français puisqu'on parlait de *PEUPLES DE FRANCE* ou de *PROVINCES FRANÇAISES*. Bien sûr l'expression <peuple français> était utilisée ; mais son sens était sans doute plus proche de celui {sujets du roi de France} que de celui de {ethnie française}.

La France tire son nom du <royaume de France> issu de la collision entre <duché de France> et <royaume des Francs> et <royaume de Francie (occidentale)>. Nichts zu tun mit einem "französischen" Volk.

LAA, the Franks didn't adopt the culture and language of the Gauls. The Franks adopted the culture and language of the Romans who imposed their culture and language of the once Celtic speaking Gauls. Many European historians agree that if the Romans did not conquer the Gauls, the Germanic people east of the Rhine would definitely have done it. That is because the Gauls, as I have mentioned, were very divisive and disunited. The quarreling and inter-tribal bickering between Gallic tribes is very well documented. A divided house cannot stand. In fact, the Gallic Wars started when Julius Caesar interfered in an inter-Gallic war between the Aedui tribe and the Sequani tribe. Caesar, ceased the opportunity to serve his own desire for conquest by taking sides with one of the warring factions thereby exploiting the Gallic inter-tribal warfare for what was to become a six year war culminating in the ultimate defeat of the Gauls. The Gauls, as you know, were later Romanized. Only under Romanization did the lot of Gallic life improve. The Romans introduced law, the Latin language, roads, bridges, aqueducts, temples, baths, forums, amphiteaters, arenas, and other amenities. If the Romans did'nt conquer the Gauls, none of this would have happened and the Gauls, as I said before would have been attacked by the Germans instead. Gaul only became united and strong under Roman hegemony. The Romans conquered the Gauls, then they became Gallo-Romans. The Gallo-Romans were conquered by the Franks later on. To the victor go the spoils of war, including the naming of the country.

<< the Franks didn't adopt the culture and language of the Gauls. The Franks adopted the culture and language of the Romans who imposed their culture and language of the once Celtic speaking Gauls. >>

That's just it. The Gauls WERE Romans. They had long since become Roman in every way. Gallic language and culture was no longer "Celtic" but Gallo-Roman! You seem to superimpose a past culture on the Gallo-Romans of the 5th century A.D.! You simply can't do that. It's comparing apples to oranges. The fact of the matter is, Gaul was united under a highly sophisticated, centralized state, during the period of Roman Gaul. Gaul. Period. France derives its language, people, and culture from the foundations laid by the Gallo-Romans. Countries are not suppossed to be named after achievements, but after their people.

You seem to think of the Gauls only in terms of the barbarian pre-Roman Celts. You must think of them outside of that context, for they were an entirely different people in the time of Charlegmagne or in the 500s A.D. They were no longer a collection of warring disunited tribes, but a large nation, under one government, and uniform language, religion, and culture.

The above post was mine. I wrote it in a rush, and didn't get a chance to sign it.

"France derives its language, people, and culture from the foundations laid by the Gallo-Romans. " Very true. Gallo-ROMANS, not simply Gauls. The Romans vastly improved every facet of Gallic life. If it weren't for the Romans, the Gauls would have been conquered by the Germans sooner or later. The Franks came along much later. The Franks defeated an already weakened Gallo-Roman state by the late 5th century. The Franks prevailed.

Hi JR,
>From what I see normally used is the carbbean grouped with North America (except for the Antilles, which are grouped with South America).
Well, it is embarrasing for me, but I am not quite sure of where to classify the Caribbean zone. For me, it makes more sense to regard this zone as a part of Central America

>However Central America is not a continent, and is grouped with North America. Although it is often grouped separately from the North America.
I have never stated that Central America is a continent. I wrote how the whole American continent was GEOGRAPHICALLY divided, and in Spanish the word Centroamérica is a valid term for the zone comprised between Guatemala and Panama.

Hi Uriel,
>(although you might have included Chile in South American, Sergio! Poor Chileans -- red-headed stepchildren, I guess....)
Well I meant ALL the countries between Colombia (which shares border with the southernst Central American land, Panama, and Argentina, the southernst South American land). I haven't excluded Chile nor any other country!!

>I wonder why it gets lumped in with Canada and the US, and cut out of Central America?
Because, *geographically* speaking, the landmass of Mexico is a part of North America. You have to put aside the political or cultural significance of North America first.

>gets chopped up into "North" and "Central" so arbitrarily.
Now you can see that there is no arbitrariety (?) at all.

>I'm assuming Mexicans would feel a little more kinship with their southern neighbors than with their northern ones.
Yes, you are right, but remember that we are talking about geography.
The kinship with our southern neighbours is expressed through the term "Latinamerican" which includes Brazil as well. This is a cultural grouping accepted by everybody.