back
11 comments
Yet another attempt at dismantling any sense of shared identity, and history of a European country. It has been the same strategies, used over and over since the 60s.

Zemmour is right, and what's more, him calling out that process has awakened a whole bunch of people (including myself) from the propaganda we have been subject to for decades in France. Giving the monster a name, and identifying his methods makes it so much easier to resist and fight back its attempts at dissolving our culture into the joyful globalism they so desperately want the french people to embrace.

In a couple years, the most eminent historians will tell you that there never was French people in France. In fact, there never was such a thing as France. The hexagon is just a geographical area in which different individual co-exist peacefully, and nothing more, not a culture, not a civilization, not a language. This sort of historical revisionism and the obvious agenda it serves will only further feed the identitarian right's narrative.

Deconstructionism has been deconstructed by Zemmour, Michéa and others. The pendulum has started swinging back, in the coming decades you will only see it accelerate.

> Yet another attempt at dismantling any sense of shared identity, and history of a European country.

What if the identity is built on (even partially) a set of lies? Lies that prevent us to see ourselves as who we really are. And therefore, prevent us to being who we really are and who we really should be.

France's history indeed deserves examination and criticism.

> 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.
One of the most controversial facts of the recent history of France is how the General de Gaulle came back to power in 1958 through a coup [1]. This isn't and probably will never be taught in class because the General is the founding father of our current constitution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#1958:_Collap...

That's not a particularly fair presentation of the events of 1958.

There was indeed a coup but De Gaulle became prime minister and was given emergency power for six months by the national assembly all according to the Constitution of the fourth republic.

The coup of 1958 didn't happen in metropolitan France. It was lead by generals in Algeria. It certainly helped the decision of calling De Gaulle back to power but "through a coup" is stretching it.

The new constitution was then enacted by a referendum, new election called and De Gaulle was elected again.

By the way, it's hardly not taught. That's part of the official curriculum for the class of première (at least for L and ES).

As a side note, Mitterrand used to call the fifth republic constitution "the permanent coup". That didn't stop him from using the large power it gives to the executive when he became president.

But it is taught in class, and the reason it isn't characterised as a "coup" is because the president at the time (Coty) took the decision to call on De Gaulle to take emergency powers (a decision the parliament endorsed). A new constitution was drafted and put to a referendum, before a general election.

The reason it isn't talked about very much outside the communist party is because it isn't nearly as controversial as you suggest.

Mobile users beware: The website buffers an HD video advertisement, not to mention additional ads...