Turkey and EU

[Napoleon Ier]

Your facetious Rhineland comment aside, you believe wrong.

Why put them aside? According to you, anything below the rhine is yours. Which includes quite a large part of what people really think is theirs.

Culturally, France's regions have distinct identities rooted in a common germano-celtic heritage.

True.

Alsace-Lorraine, parts of Belgium, Switzerland and who could forget Québec, all belong by virtue of such right, to France.

Bullshit. That right doesn't exist. I'm not saying those parts don't have a french culture/ethnic history, but that doesn't mean they should be a part of france.


However, if all you're saying is that Jenos is bullshitting and parts of france shouldn't be returned to germany, then I'm with you.

Well, whilst that is my primary contention, I don't really think it takes much work to dismantle Jenos' copy'n'paste followed by an unjustified and galactically retarded comment. Far more interesting to us, Snorri1234, is to investigate what constitutes a nation and by virtue of which rights, and although you may at first glance find yourself dismissing my contention out of hand as nationalist bullshit, I find it to be a healthy syncretic balance between organic and civic concepts of nationhood that gives you a decent standard even you may find surprisingly attractive. If only

1/you believe Nations are more than arbitrarily defined lines in the sand

2/you ask yourself what other standards hold up to serious scrutiny.

[Snorri1234]

Far more interesting to us, Snorri1234, is to investigate what constitutes a nation and by virtue of which rights, and although you may at first glance find yourself dismissing my contention out of hand as nationalist bullshit, I find it to be a healthy syncretic balance between organic and civic concepts of nationhood that gives you a decent standard even you may find surprisingly attractive. If only

1/you believe Nations are more than arbitrarily defined lines in the sand

2/you ask yourself what other standards hold up to serious scrutiny.

I don't dismiss your contention as nationalist bullshit, I dismiss it because ultimately it doesn't stand for itself. Nations alread have been defined as arbitrarily defined lines in the sand. Precisely because something like genetic make-up doesn't tell us anything. You'd take parts of belgium and germany as your own, but at that moment the people in those parts also have the same claim you made at the rest of belgium and other parts of germany. Border-territories have always breeded, and if you take over border-territories because they've breeded you're only expanding the problem.

In the end, I cannot help but dismiss your contention as nationalist bullshit because you claim your country has the claim on parts, instead of the other way around. If the south of belgium wanted to make france part of them, you wouldn't approve that, even though they have as much of a claim on it as you have.

[2dimes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwU2f2hyWao&NR=1

[Jenos Ridan]

Your facetious Rhineland comment aside, you believe wrong. Culturally, France's regions have distinct identities rooted in a common germano-celtic heritage.

Visigoths, Burgundians and Franks, but mostly the latter.

The Gallic culture was made extinct along time ago. Or at least, you should know that.

Alsace-Lorraine, parts of Belgium, Switzerland and who could forget Québec, all belong by virtue of such right, to France.

Since when?

And I'm the one with problems of understanding civil and "organic" nationalism? I dismiss the latter out of hand because it is the ideological basis for the kind of uber-nationalistic propaganda that you seem to have enshrined in your hollow head.

Jenos' doesn't know what he's talking about. He can't make his mind up between civic and organic nationalism nor what criteria he applies to determine any appartenance of nationhood, or whether he's granting existential, or metaphysical to nation-states.

And you do?

How's about you own up to being a helpless bigot and pompass blowhard windbag?

So, you trust Wiki over real history texts? Stupid question, as you are obviously so inarmored of your own trumped up self-importance that you make a thundering moron of yourself by saying France "owns" portions of countries that have never, never been historically part of France (Switzerland, Belgium, etc).

And I'm somehow the cluesless one. I'm begining to see why exactly people constantly disagree with you.

[Napoleon Ier]

Your facetious Rhineland comment aside, you believe wrong. Culturally, France's regions have distinct identities rooted in a common germano-celtic heritage.

Visigoths, Burgundians and Franks, but mostly the latter.

The Gallic culture was made extinct along time ago. Or at least, you should know that.

"The Gallic culture was made extinct along time ago." The arrival of nu0-laybor style yoof-kulcha and Islamo-maghreban influences have been relatively recent and there is still ample room for hope, but you're suggesting the people who at most represented 3% of our population wiped out the culture of the remaining 97%? Do you have references, sources, or any certified, reliable, valid historical backdrop that could lend some air of "credability" to your bald assertion?

Or am I to assume that it must be true, since when you wrote it on the intrawebs, you didn't precede it by the acronym 'lol'?

Seriously, you wouldn't be able recognise the first thing about culture, Gallic or otherwise, if it hit you over the head with an encyclopedia Britannica, stripped down, greased up, painted itself purple and danced on top of a harpsichord whilst singing the full score of HMS Pinafore.

Alsace-Lorraine, parts of Belgium, Switzerland and who could forget Québec, all belong by virtue of such right, to France.

Since when?

Since the Gallic people settled in modern France a few millenia before Our Lord and since 1608 AD.

And I'm the one with problems of understanding civil and "organic" nationalism? I dismiss the latter out of hand because it is the ideological basis for the kind of uber-nationalistic propaganda that you seem to have enshrined in your hollow head.

Oh wow. You googled the terms. Fantastic.

Jenos' doesn't know what he's talking about. He can't make his mind up between civic and organic nationalism nor what criteria he applies to determine any appartenance of nationhood, or whether he's granting existential, or metaphysical to nation-states.

And you do?

Yes, yes I do.

Y'see Jenos, I like to read. I know you like to pretend you do, but your inability to spell any words containing over two syllables and pretentions to be some kind of uber-Jiizy history guru based on your ability to regurgitate a brief three line synopsis of the events of the second world war as if it were some kind of deep, enlightening analytical commentary on an obscure socio-cultural phenomenon that occured during a breakdown in relations between the feuding barons of Upper Silesia and Pomerania, do attest to your scant literary range.

How's about you own up to being a helpless bigot and pompass blowhard windbag?

I'm not even sure that can be construed as English.

So, you trust Wiki over real history texts?

Not that I ever said that (would it be too much trouble to ask for a quote?), but isn't a referenced article a "real" history text? Or does the mere fact you've read an actual printed publication make you the uncontested head of the intellectual élite along with yodelling "6-finger" Bob where you come from?

Stupid question, as you are obviously so inarmored of your own trumped up self-importance that you make a thundering moron of yourself by saying France "owns" portions of countries that have never, never been historically part of France (Switzerland, Belgium, etc).

I would at this point type up a brief justification via the ethno-cultural bonds of the Gallic diaspora, but...

It was kinda staring you in the face, to be honest:



Assuming the "etc" refers to Québec (never, never ever apart of France or course), I can only bow to your superior command of historical fact....

And I'm somehow the cluesless one.

I can literally taste the sweet irony...

Now go wallow in self-pity a little, and then please, please, read an actual fucking book.

[Neutrino]

I don't really care much about this argument but I'm going to respond to the most blatantly wrong elements of it...

Since the Gallic people settled in modern France a few millenia before Our Lord and since 1608 AD.

...and you could also argue that all those countries have equal claim over France's territory.
Unless you want to try the hypocritical "Might makes Right" argument...

Oh wow. You googled the terms. Fantastic.

If you're going to start making claims like that, then everyone else is fully justified in assuming you have googled every word you type over 3 syllables.

I would at this point type up a brief justification via the ethno-cultural bonds of the Gallic diaspora, but...

It was kinda staring you in the face, to be honest:



Assuming the "etc" refers to Québec (never, never ever apart of France or course), I can only bow to your superior command of historical fact....

One assumes he was refering to culturally, not physically...

And if you want to use that argument, I can equally claim that most of Europe belongs to Germany. Ain't basic equality in your assumptions great?

And I'm somehow the cluesless one.

I can literally taste the sweet irony...

Now go wallow in self-pity a little, and then please, please, read an actual fucking book.[/quote]

[Jenos Ridan]

The map is clear evidence that Napster is a loon; only an complete and utter thundering moron would claim that political allegance = cultural parity.

And he has the nerve to question my literacy? But I'm not going to stoop to his level.

Napster is a self-absorbed, self-important prick with abyssmal intelligence and tact (or elan, for that matter), to say nothing of a severe case of intellectual blindness brought on by over-glorification of alledged ethnic pride; Please tell me I'm not alone here.

[Neoteny]

Thesaurus fight!

[Napoleon Ier]

I don't really care much about this argument but I'm going to respond to the most blatantly wrong elements of it...

Oh dear.

Since the Gallic people settled in modern France a few millenia before Our Lord and since 1608 AD.

...and you could also argue that all those countries have equal claim over France's territory.
Unless you want to try the hypocritical "Might makes Right" argument...

Ahh, but I never mentioned countries did I, only usurped territories of France. I defined their appartenance according to what a nation is: a collection of peoples rooted in a common cultural heritage. For you to say that Wallonie has claim over France is like saying that the State of wehever it is you live has a claim over the United States.

Oh wow. You googled the terms. Fantastic.

If you're going to start making claims like that, then everyone else is fully justified in assuming you have googled every word you type over 3 syllables.

Why in the hell would I want to do that? If I'm going to use it in a sentence, it does suggest I have some idea of what it means without having to google it. But then you've got to love his would-be knowledgeable little aside there, just to prove he'd found and understood the idea of at least one of the two terms.

One assumes he was refering to culturally, not physically...

And if you want to use that argument, I can equally claim that most of Europe belongs to Germany. Ain't basic equality in your assumptions great?

Exactly...it was meant to be a satirization of his argument that Alsace-Lorraine are German as well as just pointing out how completely ignorant he was of History. The point kinda eluded you there, but never mind.

Of course, if he was referring to it culturally, he's even more of a nutcase.

Perhaps you want to explain how Southern Belgium and Québec have "never, ever" been culturally French?

[Napoleon Ier]

only an complete and utter thundering moron would claim that political allegance = cultural parity.

I see. Good thing you rather than I are the one arguing that then, isn't it?

[Jenos Ridan]

only an complete and utter thundering moron would claim that political allegance = cultural parity.

I see. Good thing you rather than I are the one arguing that then, isn't it?

Nice attempt to weasle out of the mess you've made. Could've fooled a four-year old.

Unfortunately, nobody here is impressed. Nobody is buying your brainless skull-drudgery, or are you too dense to notice. Maybe you're simply too stupid to care. In any case, I think you've effectively made a tremendous fool of yourself here.

To restate and summarize, Naps has basically said: "I posted a map from the early 1800's and it shows that France owns most of Europe, therefore, we Frenchmen are decended from the Gallic Tribes."

To which I point out in the simplest terms possible that what he has said is completely baseless, to which he responded with flame and little else. In fact, Naps has only ever for about two pages now responded with personnal attacks and precious few actual rebuttals. I therefore restate my conclusion that you are a miserable, pompass blowhard.

At much as I sometimes enjoy watching windbags like you make excuses and try to worm out of their mistakes, it has grown tiresome. Either shut up or own up. Like a man.

[Napoleon Ier]

only an complete and utter thundering moron would claim that political allegance = cultural parity.

I see. Good thing you rather than I are the one arguing that then, isn't it?

Nice attempt to weasle out of the mess you've made. Could've fooled a four-year old.

Unfortunately, nobody here is impressed. Nobody is buying your brainless skull-drudgery, or are you too dense to notice. Maybe you're simply too stupid to care. In any case, I think you've effectively made a tremendous fool of yourself here.

To restate and summarize, Naps has basically said: "I posted a map from the early 1800's and it shows that France owns most of Europe, therefore, we Frenchmen are decended from the Gallic Tribes."

To which I point out in the simplest terms possible that what he has said is completely baseless, to which he responded with flame and little else. In fact, Naps has only ever for about two pages now responded with personnal attacks and precious few actual rebuttals. I therefore restate my conclusion that you are a miserable, pompass blowhard.

At much as I sometimes enjoy watching windbags like you make excuses and try to worm out of their mistakes, it has grown tiresome. Either shut up or own up. Like a man.

Hahahaha.....yeah, no, bit seriously, did you even bother to read the part of my post where I explained that the map was facetious way of satirizing your very own argument?

I mean, what exactly is your point here? First, you state that Strasbourg "sounds German"

And Naps has some truelly fringe theories on the origins of his country. The ancient Gallic tribes morphing into modern French? Please; the French have never been a Celtic people, they used to be a Germanic tribe called the Franks. The Romans in Gaul had more or less eradicated most traces of the Celtic culture by the end of the first century, long after Caesar's Legions had betten Vercengetorix(sp?) at Alesia. Some time after the Battle of the Catalonian Fields near Chalons, the Franks, proceeded by their cousins the Burgundians, invaded what used to be called Gaul and the feuding Germanic lordships that rose up eventualy mutanted into what we have before us now.

You then proclaim that I, suggesting that gallo-roman cultural roots form the basis of French culture have a "fringe theory". You state no evidence for this other than he sheerly ludicrous claim that (and I quote) "the French people used to be a germanic tribe called the Franks".

This is so wrong, I mean so monumentally just, wrong, that it basically destroyed the little residue respect I had left for your historical views. That's not the issue though. Now, you've thrown your little tantrum, and I presume it's basically because you don't understand what I'm telling you.

But I'll state it very clearly for you to understand:

Your argument was that Strasbourg and Metz "sound german" (a direct quote), and that ergo, Alsace-Lorraine must be too.
My rebuttal clearly explained that they weren't german. Metz is named after a (gallic) tribe, and Strasbourg has Latin origins (Strata and burgum, city of the crossroads).

I then explained how Gallo-Roman culture has been the basis for and shaped the French nation. You then mentioned the Franks: I grant, they were a cultural (though not ethnic) influence. So what? I explained to you that Alsace-Lorraine, culturally and historically, was and is French. It was taken over by Germany in 1871, and returned in 1914. So what you're arguing is that


"political allegance = cultural parity."

Something you (after two pages of jumping up and down squealing and mistaking my parodies of your arguments for my actual contentions) say "only an complete and utter thundering moron would claim".

So, now perhaps, instead of throwing your hissy fit, you can respond with an actual argument?

'Cos, heh, interestingly, that post above (y'know, the one where you actually side with what I'm saying but are too much of a sheer mogoloid to realise it) can very easily be used as a rebutall against itself: an attempt to weasle out of loking like a moron.

So, please, either come back with some serious argument for Alsace-Lorraine being german (and believe me, you wpn;t find any), or for pity's sake: Read a fucking book and get an IQ.

[Napoleon Ier]

Second: Strasburg? Metz? Come on! They're German names and you know it!

[reminisco]

call me old fashioned, but i believe that fire is magic!

[Napoleon Ier]

call me old fashioned, but i believe that fire is magic!

Explain.

[muy_thaiguy]

Naps, I was hoping to avoid this but...

Near the end of the Western Roman Empire, the Gauls were all but "Romanized," if you will, to the point where they were Roman Catholic, most if not all of them spoke Latin, and considered themselves Roman to the point where the only way they could otherwise be more so, is if they had lived in the city itself. Gaelic culture was all but gone. And when the Western Empire fell, there was little to keep the numerous Germanic tribes from crossing the Rhine into the area known as Gaul. The most notable of these tribes were the Pagan Franks, who then could be divided into sub-tribes. The Franks then spread throughout Gaul, each Tribal leader taking up a territory there. These tribes then began to conquer and assimilate other people (including the descendants of the Gauls, whom were pretty well Roman and not really of the Gaulish origin anymore) into their tribes. During this time, a warlord known as Charles the Great (later, and more commonly, Charlemagne) began conquering the other Frankish tribes, and eventually uniting the former Gaul (he had converted by this time) and then, after the blessings of both the Pope in Rome and the approval of the Byzantine Emperor, Charlemagne then renamed the conquered area The Holy Roman Empire. This included France, Northern Italy, and parts of central Europe. (Not going to go into how he stopped the Almohods in Iberia though.) After his death, The Holy Roman Empire then was never to really be that large again. It remained in central Europe from then on. As for the Western portion of it, it turned into the Frankish Kingdom. It was the Franks who went to war, who went on the crusades, and so on. Not the Gauls (whom were now part of the Frankish culture, and before that, the Roman culture).

Where do you think the name 'France' comes from? The 'Franks,' that's where Naps. The Gaulish people were no more by the Medieval Ages, much less the Germanic Invasions of Gaul (which at the time it happened, that was the only remnant of the Gaulish culture left, the name of the area.) Hope that clears it up.

[Neoteny]

Damn you, history! Damn you!

[Napoleon Ier]

Naps, I was hoping to avoid this but...

Near the end of the Western Roman Empire, the Gauls were all but "Romanized," if you will, to the point where they were Roman Catholic, most if not all of them spoke Latin, and considered themselves Roman to the point where the only way they could otherwise be more so, is if they had lived in the city itself. Gaelic culture was all but gone. And when the Western Empire fell, there was little to keep the numerous Germanic tribes from crossing the Rhine into the area known as Gaul. The most notable of these tribes were the Pagan Franks, who then could be divided into sub-tribes. The Franks then spread throughout Gaul, each Tribal leader taking up a territory there. These tribes then began to conquer and assimilate other people (including the descendants of the Gauls, whom were pretty well Roman and not really of the Gaulish origin anymore) into their tribes. During this time, a warlord known as Charles the Great (later, and more commonly, Charlemagne) began conquering the other Frankish tribes, and eventually uniting the former Gaul (he had converted by this time) and then, after the blessings of both the Pope in Rome and the approval of the Byzantine Emperor, Charlemagne then renamed the conquered area The Holy Roman Empire. This included France, Northern Italy, and parts of central Europe. (Not going to go into how he stopped the Almohods in Iberia though.) After his death, The Holy Roman Empire then was never to really be that large again. It remained in central Europe from then on. As for the Western portion of it, it turned into the Frankish Kingdom. It was the Franks who went to war, who went on the crusades, and so on. Not the Gauls (whom were now part of the Frankish culture, and before that, the Roman culture).

Where do you think the name 'France' comes from? The 'Franks,' that's where Naps. The Gaulish people were no more by the Medieval Ages, much less the Germanic Invasions of Gaul (which at the time it happened, that was the only remnant of the Gaulish culture left, the name of the area.) Hope that clears it up.

No, no, no, no! Et tu, MTGe?

Gaul was a Roman province, they weren't even Roman citizens. Gallic culture still existed and is evident today, though I'll grant the Romans had huge cultural influence.

Then the Franks...MTG, they were 3% of the population! It's like saying the British are all French because of the Normans...I know you've got some good history written up there, but trust me, I'm French, I know what I'm talking about here. Even Guiscard, I'm sure, would back me up here. Besides, I'm not denying their influence and certainly not trying to claim France is 100% gallic and ethnically pure: the germano-celtic culture I'm talking about is absolutely idiosyncratic to France, and the Romans and Framnks indeed had key roles in shaping it.

But, the best part is, it's all irrelevant: Alsace-Lorraine is a natural part of France because it's culture is rooted in the same origins as those of the rest of France.

[Jenos Ridan]

Naps, I was hoping to avoid this but...

Near the end of the Western Roman Empire, the Gauls were all but "Romanized," if you will, to the point where they were Roman Catholic, most if not all of them spoke Latin, and considered themselves Roman to the point where the only way they could otherwise be more so, is if they had lived in the city itself. Gaelic culture was all but gone. And when the Western Empire fell, there was little to keep the numerous Germanic tribes from crossing the Rhine into the area known as Gaul. The most notable of these tribes were the Pagan Franks, who then could be divided into sub-tribes. The Franks then spread throughout Gaul, each Tribal leader taking up a territory there. These tribes then began to conquer and assimilate other people (including the descendants of the Gauls, whom were pretty well Roman and not really of the Gaulish origin anymore) into their tribes. During this time, a warlord known as Charles the Great (later, and more commonly, Charlemagne) began conquering the other Frankish tribes, and eventually uniting the former Gaul (he had converted by this time) and then, after the blessings of both the Pope in Rome and the approval of the Byzantine Emperor, Charlemagne then renamed the conquered area The Holy Roman Empire. This included France, Northern Italy, and parts of central Europe. (Not going to go into how he stopped the Almohods in Iberia though.) After his death, The Holy Roman Empire then was never to really be that large again. It remained in central Europe from then on. As for the Western portion of it, it turned into the Frankish Kingdom. It was the Franks who went to war, who went on the crusades, and so on. Not the Gauls (whom were now part of the Frankish culture, and before that, the Roman culture).

Where do you think the name 'France' comes from? The 'Franks,' that's where Naps. The Gaulish people were no more by the Medieval Ages, much less the Germanic Invasions of Gaul (which at the time it happened, that was the only remnant of the Gaulish culture left, the name of the area.) Hope that clears it up.

No, no, no, no! Et tu, MTGe?

Gaul was a Roman province, they weren't even Roman citizens. Gallic culture still existed and is evident today, though I'll grant the Romans had huge cultural influence.

Under Emperor Caracalla, in 212 AD, citizenship in the empire was granted to free men throughout the empire.

Care to deny that too? Oh, right; French is a Celtic language, not a derivative of Latin. And France is not at all derived from the Latin for Frank.

Then the Franks...MTG, they were 3% of the population!

Pulling numbers out of thine own arse, I see. Could you prove this figure? A rhetorical inquery, it matters not as you are, and have been for a long time prior to now, grasping for straws.

It's like saying the British are all French because of the Normans...I know you've got some good history written up there, but trust me, I'm French, I know what I'm talking about here. Even Guiscard, I'm sure, would back me up here. Besides, I'm not denying their influence and certainly not trying to claim France is 100% gallic and ethnically pure: the germano-celtic culture I'm talking about is absolutely idiosyncratic to France, and the Romans and Framnks indeed had key roles in shaping it.

They ARE France. Obviously, you're to dense to figure that out without aid.

But, the best part is, it's all irrelevant: Alsace-Lorraine is a natural part of France because it's culture is rooted in the same origins as those of the rest of France.

This remains to actually be proven one way or the other. Especially so if one where to hold Snorri's contention on the relation of nationality/ethnicity to geographical areas.

I have MTG to thank for outlining the points I was making, and doing an excellent job of it.

[Jenos Ridan]

for pity's sake: Read a fucking book and get an IQ.

And repeated personnal attacks serve you, how exactly?

I have a question, are all frenchmen this annoying? If so, it explains why two world wars have been fought in the last century. Even if he is part of a minority, it might just be enough to irrate anybody to the point of declaring war.

As for my not having a clue, can you prove your having one? No, you can't. The reason you can't is self-evident in your reply to MTG; you've made an complete imbecile of yourself. Unlike you, my facts come from books, not some third-rate "graphic novel". I have read enough books to know the "history" you are trying to hock on us here is, as Guiscard and the rest would put it, Bollocks.

Congrats Pierre, you've lost the agrument. Cheers, chauncey.

[Dancing Mustard]

This is marvellous stuff, I comend you all.
Some really interesting material is being brought up.

[Napoleon Ier]

To be honest Big J, I really don't care. I know the history. I know the facts. You clearly don't. You're a such a basic level of comprehension, it's staggering. The basic problem here is that you think of yourself as a knowlegdeable historian and intellectual, and hence flaunt around the fact that you know who the Franks are as if it were meant to be some kind of impressively obscure histoircal occurence. I mean, this is basically like me lecturing an American on George Washington as if he'd never heard of him. You simply can't grasp the added layer of subtetly here: saying that the Franks "ARE France" is like saying the Normans "ARE Britain". The fact that the invaded France and influenced our cultrue isn't something I'm denying. But you can tell the clearly didn't ethnically cleanse the entire population of Gaul (that's about 5.000.000 people you're saying they brutally eradicated there) is that as you (bizarrely, as if to prove something) point out French is a Romance language. So so far, you've claimed that French IS teh germanic, but that it is of Latin origin, but somehow linked this, in you warped mind, to an idea of German Alsace-Lorraine. You have no clue just how plain wrong you are. Do you what the very first thing all French kids are taught to write in history in primary school is? "Nos ancêtres, les Gaulois...". But listen Jenos, you can sit there wallowing in your own stupidity all you like: I could not care less. This is all so painfully obvious to anyone whoknows what they're talking about that you're just making yourself more of a laughing stock. Come back when you've got something vaguely relevant to say. Until such time, good day sir.

[Napoleon Ier]

This is marvellous stuff, I comend you all.
Some really interesting material is being brought up.

You still owe xtra a grovelling apology for ridiculing the gold standard.

[greenoaks]

"Nos ancêtres, les Gaulois..."

what does that translate to in english Nappy ? i'm guessing the ancestry of Gaul or something similar.

[Dancing Mustard]

This is marvellous stuff, I comend you all.
Some really interesting material is being brought up.

You still owe xtra a grovelling apology for ridiculing the gold standard.

Not so much...