I think what seems clear is that France is a cultural and one-time linguistic crossroad of Europe, forbinding Southern Europe to Northern, and gainwise, Northern to Southern. As such, one sees grades of Southern-ness and Northern-ness culminating at the uttermosts. So to try and make all of France one or the other is a fruitless endeavor
What makes French a Latin-Germanic mixed language
''I think what seems clear is that France is a cultural and one-time linguistic crossroad of Europe, forbinding Southern Europe to Northern, and gainwise, Northern to Southern. As such, one sees grades of Southern-ness and Northern-ness culminating at the uttermosts. So to try and make all of France one or the other is a fruitless endeavor''
Oui, par exemple la langue est principalement d'origine latine, les toponymes eux, ont souvent une origine gauloise et les patronymes dérivent du germanique dans bien des cas, ce qui donne une bonne idée de la diversité culturelle en France.
Oui, par exemple la langue est principalement d'origine latine, les toponymes eux, ont souvent une origine gauloise et les patronymes dérivent du germanique dans bien des cas, ce qui donne une bonne idée de la diversité culturelle en France.
<< " What is the difference between French mentality in Northem France and French mentality in Southern France? " >>
-- Aside from differences in accents, dialects (Occitan), nature, average temperatures, diet (oil vs butter, wine vs beer etc.) and to some extent physical appearance, the split is coumpounded par an often overlooked factor: family structures.
Most of the Occitan region is structured in clans (stem-families), while the nuclear family is the rule in the rest of the country (with some significant exceptions in Brittany, Alsace and Flanders). Consequences are:
- Occupation of space is modelled on different patterns. In the Southe scattered habitat is unknown, while in the North it is very frequent, people tend to live in isolation.
- One megalopolis in the North and a wealth of mid-sized towns (50,000 to 250,000) (like in England BTW), in the South a few big centres with a typically "Latin" urban life (Nice, Marseilles, Montpellier, Toulouse), and otherwise a crowd of villages where people tend to live close to each other.
- In ancient times nobilty used to be made of lords living in castles in the country in the North, in the South the ruling class was the urban gentry (like in Italy).
- Extreme individualism in the North (France is the country where neighbours ignore each other) but politically leaning towards conservatism ; sense of community in the South, much more openness, traditions better preserved but a preference for the left wing.
And I could go on and on.
-- Aside from differences in accents, dialects (Occitan), nature, average temperatures, diet (oil vs butter, wine vs beer etc.) and to some extent physical appearance, the split is coumpounded par an often overlooked factor: family structures.
Most of the Occitan region is structured in clans (stem-families), while the nuclear family is the rule in the rest of the country (with some significant exceptions in Brittany, Alsace and Flanders). Consequences are:
- Occupation of space is modelled on different patterns. In the Southe scattered habitat is unknown, while in the North it is very frequent, people tend to live in isolation.
- One megalopolis in the North and a wealth of mid-sized towns (50,000 to 250,000) (like in England BTW), in the South a few big centres with a typically "Latin" urban life (Nice, Marseilles, Montpellier, Toulouse), and otherwise a crowd of villages where people tend to live close to each other.
- In ancient times nobilty used to be made of lords living in castles in the country in the North, in the South the ruling class was the urban gentry (like in Italy).
- Extreme individualism in the North (France is the country where neighbours ignore each other) but politically leaning towards conservatism ; sense of community in the South, much more openness, traditions better preserved but a preference for the left wing.
And I could go on and on.
" think what seems clear is that France is a cultural and one-time linguistic crossroad of Europe "
That statement would applies much better to countries such as Belgium or Switzerland than to France.
Linguistically speaking Belgium is the real exemple of the cultural crossroad of western Europe; being half romance and half germanic in about more or less same proportions. Belgium have been on the edge of the roman empire, and then in the heart of the "homeland" of frankish empire for centuries. If a land has to be, and have been the crossroad of (western) Europe it is this one.
Economically and demographically speaking, Belgium (and benelux in general) is in the heart of the most populated center of the EU. France is on the south-west side of this "Rhine axis".
Even geographically speaking, Belgium is at same distance to Stockholm than to Madrid; and to Athens than to Reykjavik:
It is not for nothing that Brussels have been shoosen for European capital, and not Paris.
http://www.cijoint.fr/cj200907/cijlQ7ZDcJ.jpg
" As such, one sees grades of Southern-ness and Northern-ness culminating at the uttermosts. So to try and make all of France one or the other is a fruitless endeavor "
You forget that France is not just a "european union" of various regions with complete different cultures (as are for exemple Belgium or Switzerland); but has forged for a long time a "mainstream" culture. This "mainstream culture", whatever we like it or not, is a latin-based one: A romance language and historically dominating catholic faith. Of course some regions are less "latin" than other, due to their history of their proximity to germanic areas (Alsace, Nord-pas-de-Calais, Normandy, etc.), that doesn't mean that they are culturally like those germanic areas, those regions have been heavily "frenchified" if we could say so.
Concerning the previous exemples of work/way of life stereotypes (England vs France), the french stereotypes are caricatural but could apply to all the whole country, not only the southern part.
http://www.greenbees.fr/06_Ressources/06_Intercultural_Differences_UK_France/Intercultural_UK_France_FR.htm
" -- Aside from differences in accents, dialects (Occitan) "
Not all southern France was part of Occitan areas. Roussillon was Catalan, Corsica Corsican, Basque country Basque, etc... And there are traditionally oil-speaking (or Franco-prevençal) areas in the south half of France: Charentes, Dauphiné, Lyonnais, Savoie, etc.
" diet (oil vs butter, wine vs beer etc.) "
Well, almost all of France is on the "wine side" of Europe. The regions where beer culture is deeply traditionally implanted as it is in germanic countries is mostly limited to Artois/Picardie and Alsace.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Europe-sud-vin.jpg
The red line is the northern limit of traditional wine-making areas. In France, Britanny and Normandy hve a long tradition of Cider-making, like in northern Atlantic coast of Spain. Only Nord-Pas-de-Calais is traditionally more "beer-based" as in most germanic speaking areas of Europe.
" and to some extent physical appearance"
Well I've been living years in both northern (Paris) and southern areas (Languedoc-Roussillon) I've never really noticed that physical distinction. This could maybe noticeable if we take in consideration Normandy, Nord-Pas-de-Calais or Alsace-Lorraine, but not the whole northern half of France.
Inversely, If go from Paris to Amsterdam the distinction is often very sharp (not eve speaking about the cultural gasp)... even if there are much less kilometers between Paris and Amsterdam than between Paris and Montpellier. The idea that people in northern half of France look like the average looking people in netherlands for exemple is deeply wrong, even if you could find some that could pass for being Dutch, in average most french people won't.
" - Occupation of space is modelled on different patterns. In the Southe scattered habitat is unknown "
Even if it is traditionally true that scattered habitat is relatively unknown in the midi (especially in the south east), today it is not true anymore. Actually this is a huge problem in the mediterranean regions that is called "mitage": that means the developpement of thousands of isolated houses (+their swimming pools and all the new roads that connect them) that "colonise" anarchically the mediterranean forests, areas that were traditionally not urbanized. This provoques a consumption of space, increase forest fires risks, and degrades the landscape.
" while in the North it is very frequent, people tend to live in isolation. "
Well, it might be true in rural areas. Said that, in cities the level of urban densities in northern Half of France is generally much higher than in northern European countries. This is especially true in the most important and significative city: Paris.
" One megalopolis in the North and a wealth of mid-sized towns (50,000 to 250,000) (like in England BTW) "
The comparision with England urbanisation is limited to the fact that there is one main dominant megalopolis, this is due to political reasons: many southern european countries are in the same situation, Portugal or Castillan Spain for exemple.
Generally speaking your exemple is not well shoosen; The occupation of space is deeply different between Northern France and England (and Netherlands, Germany too):
1. firslty the general density is much lower in Northern half of France than in those countries, about half of it at least (3 times less than in Benelux) , a general density of population more similar to the iberian peninsula.
http://lettres-histoire.info/lhg/geo/geo_europe/cartes_europe/densite_europe.jpg
2. Secondly, this lower general density is accompanied with a much higher urban density (especially in comparision with English cities, but also true in a bit lesser extend in Netherlands or germany): we just have to compare the wideness of urbanized areas of equivalent population in France and England to see that we face two completly different urban models:
Let's see Paris and London, both cities of similar weight; 10 million people each, similar economical weight, but with a very different occupation of space:
http://www.cijoint.fr/cj200907/cijCph2m5H.jpg
- The red areas are the dense core of the urban area, dominated by continuous urbanisation, made of continuous multi-leveled buildings.
- The rose areas is the low desily constructed and populated areas.
- The red line is the administrative area.
The result is that most parisians live in buildings with flats, in a relatively small centralized area (that includes many parts of the petite ceinture), while most Londoners live in lined-houses or low-rise buildings in large and aerated neighborhoods.
This is not a specific case, Liverpool, Manchester, leeds, Scheffields, etc. are showing the same characteristics. If we compare with Berlin the difference in terms of densitiy is even stronger (it would be the same with Hambourg, Frankfort of most of the other German cities).
This difference of density in cities implies lots of differences in the way you live the city. That's make living in Paris more similar to living in Madrid, Rome or Barcelona than living in Berlin or London.
" in the South a few big centres with a typically "Latin" urban life (Nice, Marseilles, Montpellier, Toulouse)"
Well, that is not restricted to the south; Paris has also a latin urban life (let's the "cafe culture" or "scooter culture", living in ver densily populated urban neighborhoods, people living close to each other.
Actually Paris is a city with population density that are found only in the mediterranean areas. Intra muros districts show densities even higher than those in Naples or Barcelona. This is nothing like a "northern" kind of space occupation.
That statement would applies much better to countries such as Belgium or Switzerland than to France.
Linguistically speaking Belgium is the real exemple of the cultural crossroad of western Europe; being half romance and half germanic in about more or less same proportions. Belgium have been on the edge of the roman empire, and then in the heart of the "homeland" of frankish empire for centuries. If a land has to be, and have been the crossroad of (western) Europe it is this one.
Economically and demographically speaking, Belgium (and benelux in general) is in the heart of the most populated center of the EU. France is on the south-west side of this "Rhine axis".
Even geographically speaking, Belgium is at same distance to Stockholm than to Madrid; and to Athens than to Reykjavik:
It is not for nothing that Brussels have been shoosen for European capital, and not Paris.
http://www.cijoint.fr/cj200907/cijlQ7ZDcJ.jpg
" As such, one sees grades of Southern-ness and Northern-ness culminating at the uttermosts. So to try and make all of France one or the other is a fruitless endeavor "
You forget that France is not just a "european union" of various regions with complete different cultures (as are for exemple Belgium or Switzerland); but has forged for a long time a "mainstream" culture. This "mainstream culture", whatever we like it or not, is a latin-based one: A romance language and historically dominating catholic faith. Of course some regions are less "latin" than other, due to their history of their proximity to germanic areas (Alsace, Nord-pas-de-Calais, Normandy, etc.), that doesn't mean that they are culturally like those germanic areas, those regions have been heavily "frenchified" if we could say so.
Concerning the previous exemples of work/way of life stereotypes (England vs France), the french stereotypes are caricatural but could apply to all the whole country, not only the southern part.
http://www.greenbees.fr/06_Ressources/06_Intercultural_Differences_UK_France/Intercultural_UK_France_FR.htm
" -- Aside from differences in accents, dialects (Occitan) "
Not all southern France was part of Occitan areas. Roussillon was Catalan, Corsica Corsican, Basque country Basque, etc... And there are traditionally oil-speaking (or Franco-prevençal) areas in the south half of France: Charentes, Dauphiné, Lyonnais, Savoie, etc.
" diet (oil vs butter, wine vs beer etc.) "
Well, almost all of France is on the "wine side" of Europe. The regions where beer culture is deeply traditionally implanted as it is in germanic countries is mostly limited to Artois/Picardie and Alsace.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Europe-sud-vin.jpg
The red line is the northern limit of traditional wine-making areas. In France, Britanny and Normandy hve a long tradition of Cider-making, like in northern Atlantic coast of Spain. Only Nord-Pas-de-Calais is traditionally more "beer-based" as in most germanic speaking areas of Europe.
" and to some extent physical appearance"
Well I've been living years in both northern (Paris) and southern areas (Languedoc-Roussillon) I've never really noticed that physical distinction. This could maybe noticeable if we take in consideration Normandy, Nord-Pas-de-Calais or Alsace-Lorraine, but not the whole northern half of France.
Inversely, If go from Paris to Amsterdam the distinction is often very sharp (not eve speaking about the cultural gasp)... even if there are much less kilometers between Paris and Amsterdam than between Paris and Montpellier. The idea that people in northern half of France look like the average looking people in netherlands for exemple is deeply wrong, even if you could find some that could pass for being Dutch, in average most french people won't.
" - Occupation of space is modelled on different patterns. In the Southe scattered habitat is unknown "
Even if it is traditionally true that scattered habitat is relatively unknown in the midi (especially in the south east), today it is not true anymore. Actually this is a huge problem in the mediterranean regions that is called "mitage": that means the developpement of thousands of isolated houses (+their swimming pools and all the new roads that connect them) that "colonise" anarchically the mediterranean forests, areas that were traditionally not urbanized. This provoques a consumption of space, increase forest fires risks, and degrades the landscape.
" while in the North it is very frequent, people tend to live in isolation. "
Well, it might be true in rural areas. Said that, in cities the level of urban densities in northern Half of France is generally much higher than in northern European countries. This is especially true in the most important and significative city: Paris.
" One megalopolis in the North and a wealth of mid-sized towns (50,000 to 250,000) (like in England BTW) "
The comparision with England urbanisation is limited to the fact that there is one main dominant megalopolis, this is due to political reasons: many southern european countries are in the same situation, Portugal or Castillan Spain for exemple.
Generally speaking your exemple is not well shoosen; The occupation of space is deeply different between Northern France and England (and Netherlands, Germany too):
1. firslty the general density is much lower in Northern half of France than in those countries, about half of it at least (3 times less than in Benelux) , a general density of population more similar to the iberian peninsula.
http://lettres-histoire.info/lhg/geo/geo_europe/cartes_europe/densite_europe.jpg
2. Secondly, this lower general density is accompanied with a much higher urban density (especially in comparision with English cities, but also true in a bit lesser extend in Netherlands or germany): we just have to compare the wideness of urbanized areas of equivalent population in France and England to see that we face two completly different urban models:
Let's see Paris and London, both cities of similar weight; 10 million people each, similar economical weight, but with a very different occupation of space:
http://www.cijoint.fr/cj200907/cijCph2m5H.jpg
- The red areas are the dense core of the urban area, dominated by continuous urbanisation, made of continuous multi-leveled buildings.
- The rose areas is the low desily constructed and populated areas.
- The red line is the administrative area.
The result is that most parisians live in buildings with flats, in a relatively small centralized area (that includes many parts of the petite ceinture), while most Londoners live in lined-houses or low-rise buildings in large and aerated neighborhoods.
This is not a specific case, Liverpool, Manchester, leeds, Scheffields, etc. are showing the same characteristics. If we compare with Berlin the difference in terms of densitiy is even stronger (it would be the same with Hambourg, Frankfort of most of the other German cities).
This difference of density in cities implies lots of differences in the way you live the city. That's make living in Paris more similar to living in Madrid, Rome or Barcelona than living in Berlin or London.
" in the South a few big centres with a typically "Latin" urban life (Nice, Marseilles, Montpellier, Toulouse)"
Well, that is not restricted to the south; Paris has also a latin urban life (let's the "cafe culture" or "scooter culture", living in ver densily populated urban neighborhoods, people living close to each other.
Actually Paris is a city with population density that are found only in the mediterranean areas. Intra muros districts show densities even higher than those in Naples or Barcelona. This is nothing like a "northern" kind of space occupation.
Racially there is clear division between Northern and Southern-Central France:
Northern France: strong nordic presence
Central and Southern France: alpine people and some mediterranean , mainly concentrated around Rhone delta and surrounding areas
Northern France: strong nordic presence
Central and Southern France: alpine people and some mediterranean , mainly concentrated around Rhone delta and surrounding areas
" Northern France: strong nordic presence "
If "northern France" is Flanders, Alsace-Moselle, Normandy, this might be true that a greater number of "nordic people" can be shown.
If "northern France" is the whole northern part of France: Paris and Ile-de-France, Loire Valley, Burgondy, Britanny, Berry, Vendée, Maine, etc... this is not true at all.
You actually have much more "nordic presence" in the french riviera where many northern europeans from England, Germany or Netherlands choosed to retired, settle or spending their holidays there to have a better weather. I recently came back from Cannes... I felt I was in Amsterdam! This is not the case at all in Paris.
" and some mediterranean , mainly concentrated around Rhone delta and surrounding areas "
Completly wrong. you can find mediterranean looking people everywhere in France, as well as lighter people, we have been mixed since ever.
" Central and Southern France: alpine people "
Alpine??! you talk like a racist 19th century "anthropologist"
If "northern France" is Flanders, Alsace-Moselle, Normandy, this might be true that a greater number of "nordic people" can be shown.
If "northern France" is the whole northern part of France: Paris and Ile-de-France, Loire Valley, Burgondy, Britanny, Berry, Vendée, Maine, etc... this is not true at all.
You actually have much more "nordic presence" in the french riviera where many northern europeans from England, Germany or Netherlands choosed to retired, settle or spending their holidays there to have a better weather. I recently came back from Cannes... I felt I was in Amsterdam! This is not the case at all in Paris.
" and some mediterranean , mainly concentrated around Rhone delta and surrounding areas "
Completly wrong. you can find mediterranean looking people everywhere in France, as well as lighter people, we have been mixed since ever.
" Central and Southern France: alpine people "
Alpine??! you talk like a racist 19th century "anthropologist"
Well, if you consider "alpine" to be a racist term, then "mediterranean" should be regarded the same way too. Alpine means people who are dark as the mediterranean (in contrast to the nordic people who are lighter and blue eyed) but opposed to mediterranean people they are more corpulent and brachicephalic (see Jacques Chirac for example). This is the most common human type across all France.
It simple like this: the ideologic national identity of France is based on a mystic Ligurian-Gaulois-Gallo-Roman population, the ideologic cultural identity is based on an equally mystic Latin culture. Both ideologies are born from a desire to unify the French population. In reality, French language, culture and polpulation are, horribile dictu, a Mediterranian-Germanic mix, like almost all countries of Western culture, including USA, Australia or Canada.
" It simple like this: the ideologic national identity of France is based on a mystic Ligurian-Gaulois-Gallo-Roman population"
No Ouest. You definitly don't know nothing about french culture and society.
You apply your own germanic thinking to french culture:
In France, as in many latin countries, (contrary to germanic-based-nationalist identities), we don't base our identity on a supposed "ethnicity", "population" or "ancestry line", but on CULTURE, and especially LANGUAGE (that's why we speak about it here in a language-based forum!). The same way when you say "celtic", "germanic", "latin", "slavic", "hellenic", etc. we are speaking about groups that are defined by their LANGUAGE, not by a supposed common DNA lineage, we don't care about that.
Since we are children we are not teached to be of a supposed "Gaulish ethnicity" as you might think ("nos ancêtres les Gaulois" is a very old propaganda invenetd in the second empire, in a time when "ethnic" theories was in fashion: they are not anymore). Today we are teached that our land has always been a melting pot that sucessively received numerous various populations: pre-celtic, basque, ligurian, iberian, celtic (gaul), roman (with many componants of the roman ethnic composition), frankish, burgondian, wisigotic, viking, moorish, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, north African, Black African, Asian, central European, eastern European, etc.
" the ideologic cultural identity is based on an equally mystic Latin culture."
Once again you must understand that the word "latin" as it is used here means "being part of a romance-speaking culture". It doesn't mean at all that we are culturally romans as were the inhabitants of antic Rome...
There is nothing mystic about that, France is a country of romance-speaking culture, it is a fact, you can't nothing about that. Like it is a fact that Russia is a slavic-speaking culture, or Germany a germanic-speaking culture. All attemps of denying this reality is ridiculous my friend. It sounds like a strange envy felling of being part of french culture from your side, denying the cultural differences that exist between the various European cultures.
These differences in European culture is what makes Europe so rich: we are not a monolithic unique "western" culture as you might wish we be: From Paris, where I live I can shoose to go to Netherlands with my car in 4-5 hours and then I'll be in a totally different ambiance: very different language, different architecture, different foods, different looking peoples, different mentalities, different conceptions of urban space, way of life... It is so great that we are not alike, inside our common European identity.
" Both ideologies are born from a desire to unify the French population."
Once again our population is in no way unified by any supposed "ethnicity", but by Language, governement and laws. we are since ever a melting-pot of populations from various different cultures that melted in our romance culture.
" a Mediterranian-Germanic mix, like almost all countries of Western culture, including USA, Australia or Canada. "
There is no one unique "western culture" (I'm not sure about what countries you include in this loosy-defined concept), this is a reality you'd better to accept this reality because it is better for all of us Europeans, it makes us richer of our diversities; and makes our continent a very interesting one:
In Europe you have various linguistic areas; Germanic, Romance, Slavic, hellenic, etc.
In Europe you have various religious-dominated areas: Catholic, protestant (lutherian areas, anglican, etc.), muslim (Albania, Bosnia, Turquey, etc.), Orthodox, etc.
In Europe you have various architectural vernacular traditions areas (formed by both climatic and cultural influences mixed together): "Atlantic fringe" (north west France, Wales, Ireland, Galicia, Asturias, etc), "mediterranean" (most of Spain, southern France, Italy, parts of Balkans, greece), "north-western" (england, Benelux, northern Germany), "central European" (southern Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc.), "northern European" (scandinavia, etc. All this with either many overlaps and mixed, or brutal drastic changes.
In Europe you have different alcohol drinking traditions: traditionally wine-drinking areas, beer-drinking areas, cider-drinking areas, vodka, etc.
In Europe you have various law codes and juridic traditions.
In Europe you have different political histories and relations to power: parlementarian monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia, Spain, etc.), republics (France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Ireland etc.) or federal republics like Germany. etc.
And, if you seem to take a great importance of "population" in terms of "ethnicity/ look", then yes, you have variation of looks in the different areas of Europe: people don't look the same in Spain that in Sweden, or in a lesser extend don't look the same in France than in netherlands, UK or Germany.
No Ouest. You definitly don't know nothing about french culture and society.
You apply your own germanic thinking to french culture:
In France, as in many latin countries, (contrary to germanic-based-nationalist identities), we don't base our identity on a supposed "ethnicity", "population" or "ancestry line", but on CULTURE, and especially LANGUAGE (that's why we speak about it here in a language-based forum!). The same way when you say "celtic", "germanic", "latin", "slavic", "hellenic", etc. we are speaking about groups that are defined by their LANGUAGE, not by a supposed common DNA lineage, we don't care about that.
Since we are children we are not teached to be of a supposed "Gaulish ethnicity" as you might think ("nos ancêtres les Gaulois" is a very old propaganda invenetd in the second empire, in a time when "ethnic" theories was in fashion: they are not anymore). Today we are teached that our land has always been a melting pot that sucessively received numerous various populations: pre-celtic, basque, ligurian, iberian, celtic (gaul), roman (with many componants of the roman ethnic composition), frankish, burgondian, wisigotic, viking, moorish, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, north African, Black African, Asian, central European, eastern European, etc.
" the ideologic cultural identity is based on an equally mystic Latin culture."
Once again you must understand that the word "latin" as it is used here means "being part of a romance-speaking culture". It doesn't mean at all that we are culturally romans as were the inhabitants of antic Rome...
There is nothing mystic about that, France is a country of romance-speaking culture, it is a fact, you can't nothing about that. Like it is a fact that Russia is a slavic-speaking culture, or Germany a germanic-speaking culture. All attemps of denying this reality is ridiculous my friend. It sounds like a strange envy felling of being part of french culture from your side, denying the cultural differences that exist between the various European cultures.
These differences in European culture is what makes Europe so rich: we are not a monolithic unique "western" culture as you might wish we be: From Paris, where I live I can shoose to go to Netherlands with my car in 4-5 hours and then I'll be in a totally different ambiance: very different language, different architecture, different foods, different looking peoples, different mentalities, different conceptions of urban space, way of life... It is so great that we are not alike, inside our common European identity.
" Both ideologies are born from a desire to unify the French population."
Once again our population is in no way unified by any supposed "ethnicity", but by Language, governement and laws. we are since ever a melting-pot of populations from various different cultures that melted in our romance culture.
" a Mediterranian-Germanic mix, like almost all countries of Western culture, including USA, Australia or Canada. "
There is no one unique "western culture" (I'm not sure about what countries you include in this loosy-defined concept), this is a reality you'd better to accept this reality because it is better for all of us Europeans, it makes us richer of our diversities; and makes our continent a very interesting one:
In Europe you have various linguistic areas; Germanic, Romance, Slavic, hellenic, etc.
In Europe you have various religious-dominated areas: Catholic, protestant (lutherian areas, anglican, etc.), muslim (Albania, Bosnia, Turquey, etc.), Orthodox, etc.
In Europe you have various architectural vernacular traditions areas (formed by both climatic and cultural influences mixed together): "Atlantic fringe" (north west France, Wales, Ireland, Galicia, Asturias, etc), "mediterranean" (most of Spain, southern France, Italy, parts of Balkans, greece), "north-western" (england, Benelux, northern Germany), "central European" (southern Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc.), "northern European" (scandinavia, etc. All this with either many overlaps and mixed, or brutal drastic changes.
In Europe you have different alcohol drinking traditions: traditionally wine-drinking areas, beer-drinking areas, cider-drinking areas, vodka, etc.
In Europe you have various law codes and juridic traditions.
In Europe you have different political histories and relations to power: parlementarian monarchies (UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia, Spain, etc.), republics (France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Ireland etc.) or federal republics like Germany. etc.
And, if you seem to take a great importance of "population" in terms of "ethnicity/ look", then yes, you have variation of looks in the different areas of Europe: people don't look the same in Spain that in Sweden, or in a lesser extend don't look the same in France than in netherlands, UK or Germany.