Romania in NATO

[rcristi]

QUOTE

...which succesfully destroyed the culture and language(or nearly did) of the Flemmish, Bretons, Occitans, Basques, Alsatians etc. who only 200 years made up a combined 80% (!!!) of France's population?

Really??? That's quite an acomplishment if it's true, which I doubt. Can you please give me some sources that support your claim?

Best regards
Chris

[Najroda]

QUOTE

Exactely... How could you talk about an autonomy (except on paper) when all Romania entered into the Red Zone and was heading to \"socialist democracy\"...

Because you brought up the Kosovo comparisson. BTW I did stress that the Maros Autonomous Hungarian Region was imperfect, but it certainly did not exist just "on paper", the situation of the Szekler Hungarians was undeniable better than in the next decades.

[Najroda]

Chris,

I will try to look up some detailed natioality data of France later when I have more time at had. In the mean time, read some excerpts of a paper by Dominique Breillat, University of Poitiers:

QUOTE

Even if the idea was already there since the Renaissance, the French Revolution has strongly asserted its refusal of minorities and therefore of regional or minority languages. ... The French Revolution emphasizes the unity of the French people. “There is no more, for any part of the Nation, or any person, privilege or exception to the common rule of the French” according to the Constitution of 1791, the first french constitution. Of course, the idea of linguistic unity is linked to these principles. In a “Report on the necessity and the means to annihilate the patois and “universalise” the use of the French language”, Abbé Grégoire points out that “these crude idioms perpetuate the childhood of the reason and the old age of the prejudices. ... In education too, during the Revolution, French was the only language used in teaching. The same policy was followed by the IIIrd Republic in its laws on education and we can see that pupils who used their regional languages or dialects at school were punished and severely humilitated.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica (1982) France's (indeginous) nationality data:

80 000 Basque
500 000 Breton
260 000 Catalan
260 000 Corsican
90 000 Flemish
1 510 000 German (alsatian)
920 000 Occitan

If you consider that Flemmish was once spoken in the whole northwest of France, roughly above the Abbeville-Cambrai line, a region with millions and millions of inhabitants today, but only 90.000 Flemmish speakers remain. In many cases only the names of towns and villages remind of the ancestral language of the region's inhabitants: Domvast, Roubaix (Roebeke), Dunkerque (Duinkerken), Hazebrouck etc., while others have been Frenchised beyond recognition: Lille (Rijssel), Calais (Kalis), Arras (Atrecht), Cambrai (Kamerijk) etc.

Then add the regions where traditionaly the other regional languages were spoken (also much larger than today), not much more than central France remains, which is indeed where French was exclusively spoken untill a few centuries ago.

But I'll get back to you as soon as I have retrieved some more exact data.

[rcristi]

Thx for your fast reply. That's quite an amazing accomplishment for the French (no pun intended). We should open a new thread for this.

Cheers
Chris

[Chandernagore]

I see absolutely nothing exceptional in this, considering the period of history. With a full blown revolution closing or running there were some more serious political priorities at work than teaching dialects. Priorities like creating a republic in the middle of an absolutist continent which required as strong a national unity as possible (God knows there was enough internal division without even bringing in language). late 18th /early 19th century was not the time of enlightened minority policies or successfull balkanization.

At the same time what language was allowed in the British empire and taught in the schools of London ?

How many official languages / dialects did the Dutch allow for administrative/scholar purpose in 1800 ?

Oh, and yes : I think that even today dialects should better be kept at community level. When I'm learning Dutch hard, I hate it when I can't understand a single word spoken in an obscure Flemish dialect and the guy makes no effort to communicate in his own official language.

QUOTE

If you consider that Flemmish was once spoken in the whole northwest of France

Once...mmm....When ?

"Once", Latin was spoken in the whole region. And "once" Frankish dominated. Are you suggesting that wherever "once" Dutch was spoken should remain that way until the end of times ? The swirling storms of history have battered the region many times. There is no point in displaying sick chauvinistic nostalgia for any one carefully choosen period.

QUOTE

Then add the regions where traditionaly the other regional languages were spoken (also much larger than today), not much more than central France remains

I'm sure you can write off central France too if you dig far enough in your history book. Are you telling us that France, the US, Canada, Germany, Russia etc... should not exist because the concept of modern nation with a limited number of official languages is immoral to you ?

[Najroda]

[quote]I see absolutely nothing exceptional in this, considering the period of history. With a full blown revolution closing or running there were some more serious political priorities at work than teaching dialects.[/quote]

Since when are Breton, Alsatian, Basque and Flemmish dialects of French? :?:

[quote]Priorities like creating a republic in the middle of an absolutist continent which required as strong a national unity as possible (God knows there was enough internal division without even bringing in language). late 18th /early 19th century was not the time of enlightened minority policies or successfull balkanization.[/quote]

I never said it was. However it seems that some people still glorify this modell in the 21st century, yet they condemn the same policy when it concerns their wester neighbour, in the 2nd half of the 19th century, under similar circumstances as you described. Talking about hipocricy...

[quote]At the same time what language was allowed in the British empire and taught in the schools of London ?[/quote]

Indeed, Britain wasn't a hair better when it comes to the right of it's indigenous nationalities. Your point is ... ?

[quote]How many official languages / dialects did the Dutch allow for administrative/scholar purpose in 1800 ?[/quote]

See above...

A propos French has been an officially language for many years. The last Dutch law, written in French was only replaced by a modern, Dutch text only a few years ago (!) and the subscript of the Dutch coat of arms is "Je maintiendrai" (!!!)

[quote]Oh, and yes : I think that even today dialects should better be kept at community level. When I'm learning Dutch hard, I hate it when I can't understand a single word spoken in an obscure Flemish dialect and the guy makes no effort to communicate in his own official language.[/quote]

Thank you for your opinion on dialects. What a shame that I was talking about regional languages, not dialects. I will try to express myself more clearly in the future

[quote][quote]If you consider that Flemmish was once spoken in the whole northwest of France[/quote]

Once...mmm....When ?[/quote]

In the period we are discussing right now. 2-3 centuries ago.

[quote]"Once", Latin was spoken in the whole region. And "once" Frankish dominated. Are you suggesting that wherever "once" Dutch was spoken should remain that way until the end of times ? The swirling storms of history have battered the region many times. There is no point in displaying sick chauvinistic nostalgia for any one carefully choosen period.[/quote]

I don't recall I claimed any of this. The sole reason why I brought up the French national state and it's denationalizing character, because some glorify it as an example to follow in the 21st century and condemn it at the same, when it comes to others...

[quote][quote]Then add the regions where traditionaly the other regional languages were spoken (also much larger than today), not much more than central France remains[/quote]

I'm sure you can write off central France too if you dig far enough in your history book. Are you telling us that France, the US, Canada, Germany, Russia etc... should not exist because the concept of modern nation with a limited number of official languages is immoral to you ?[/quote]

Again, I didn't say any of this. These conclusions are yours. I only stated historical facts.

I don't intend to say the following to attack you, but I have witnessed some schizophreny when it comes to your opinion on this subject. At one hand you are eagerly defending minority rights (especially Hungarian) in contemporary Romania, at the other hand you are quite chauvinistic about the French/Francophone culture in Belgium and France, which are (were, in the case of Belgium) equally repressive against all other cultures. I am just curious how you can balance such seemingly contradicting positions, no harm intended.

Personally, I disaprove repressive nationalism equaly, no matter if it concerns France since 1798, Hungary between 1867 and 1918 or Romania after 1918.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Since when are Breton, Alsatian, Basque and Flemmish dialects of French?  :?:

I don't know. Where do you get this idea ?
Since when are those languages forbidden in France ?

QUOTE

Indeed, Britain wasn't a hair better when it comes to the right of it's indigenous nationalities. Your point is ... ?

That you're throwing stones at France that you could throw at anybody else.

QUOTE

Thank you for your opinion on dialects. What a shame that I was talking about regional languages, not dialects.

Indeed. Sometimes you speak about official languages, sometimes regional languages and at times dialects, not always in a coherent manner. Hard to follow you. "Alsacian" is well considered a dialect.

QUOTE

I don't intend to say the following to attack you, but I have witnessed some schizophreny when it comes to your opinion on this subject. At one hand you are eagerly defending minority rights (especially Hungarian) in contemporary Romania, at the other hand you are quite chauvinistic about the French/Francophone culture in Belgium and France, which are (were, in the case of Belgium) equally repressive against all other cultures. I am just curious how you can balance such seemingly contradicting positions, no harm intended.

Gooblygook. You're the one painting France with such a broad brush that you would be offending mother nature itself with it. Your choice of vocabulary ("repressive", "schizophreny") is so excessive that you cannot hide your anger under a veil of historical interest.

[dragos]

Enough of personal remarks and attacks to various nations. Topic is closed.