Did Paris colonise France?

Well, the topic diverged quickly :p
In 1789, Paris became the center of a French government that was dominated by the Parisians. Paris choose for France, and France followed, that's particularly obvious on the political side of things: although in 1789 everyone was fed up of feudalism, monarchism was way more popular in the French hinterlands that the new and radical idea of democracy. The returns to democracy (that is, revolutions) were all engineered by the Parisians... while when, during the second Republic, universal suffrage was instaured, the French population voted for Napoleon III to become emperor. It dominated culturally too, and there's proof enough that 19th century France was a lot more culturally homogenous than she was pre-1789.
But it was not colonization because also arguably the "peasants" of the rest of France were indeed considered backwards (the war in Vendee probably played its part), there were still considered French.
Although the "we gotta civilize the natives" argument that was widespread by Jules Ferry's time is similar to the reasonment behind the "parisification" of France, in colonialism it was very, very largely a pretext to economical and territorial gains - while IMO it was really the motive for the 'parisification'.
 
You sure? Maybe considering the whole Britanny is exaggerating it because the Eastern part never was Breton in language, also I´m quite sure that Dunkirk and the area around it has a relatively sizable Flemish minority(more than 5%)
Dunkerque is Ch'ti. The Flemish-speaking part of the Nord département (Which is basically French Flanders and Hainaut) is very small and concentrated on the other side of the Aa.
Occitan for life.
Occitan is quite dead, to be fair. I never heard anyone speaking Provençal or Occitan in the last eight years I've lived in Provence. There's only the old street signs in Aix that are in Provençal, and even then, there are new ones in French right next to them.
 
Although the "we gotta civilize the natives" argument that was widespread by Jules Ferry's time is similar to the reasonment behind the "parisification" of France, in colonialism it was very, very largely a pretext to economical and territorial gains - while IMO it was really the motive for the 'parisification'.
I am of the mind that it was an argument that was actually believed by a lot of people, that is, that the concern of the white man burden was often a genuine one.

So you would say the two situations are too dissimilar because they had nominal power but that the underlying logic was similar?
 
Dunkerque is Ch'ti. The Flemish-speaking part of the Nord département (Which is basically French Flanders and Hainaut) is very small and concentrated on the other side of the Aa.

Occitan is quite dead, to be fair. I never heard anyone speaking Provençal or Occitan in the last eight years I've lived in Provence. There's only the old street signs in Aix that are in Provençal, and even then, there are new ones in French right next to them.
By Dunkirk I meant the French Flanders area in general not Durkirk the city.

Moribund not dead, probably will not die completely at this point.
 
In 1789, Paris became the center of a French government that was dominated by the Parisians. Paris choose for France, and France followed, that's particularly obvious on the political side of things: although in 1789 everyone was fed up of feudalism, monarchism was way more popular in the French hinterlands that the new and radical idea of democracy. The returns to democracy (that is, revolutions) were all engineered by the Parisians...

Well, many revolutionnary leaders were not Parisians : La Fayette was Auvergnat, Mirabeau Provençal, Condorcet and Barnave Grenoblois, Grégoire Lorrain, even Talleyrand had learn to read and write in occitan before french.
 
I am of the mind that it was an argument that was actually believed by a lot of people, that is, that the concern of the white man burden was often a genuine one.

So you would say the two situations are too dissimilar because they had nominal power but that the underlying logic was similar?
I'm... not quite sure I understand what you mean. What I mean is that although it appears to be the same logic ("let's educate those backward peoples"), in one case it was genuinely the goal of the thing, that is, spreading the "parisian-french" culture to the rest of France, while in colonization it's only a useful pretext that you use to morally justify yourself. In the end there was no serious efforts at assimilating the local people, the emphasis was on exploiting the economic resources.
Well, many revolutionnary leaders were not Parisians : La Fayette was Auvergnat, Mirabeau Provençal, Condorcet and Barnave Grenoblois, Grégoire Lorrain, even Talleyrand had learn to read and write in occitan before french.
True... Though I'd say that in the end, the choices to follow them or not was up to the Parisian sans-cullotes. Mirabeau could have argued as much as he wanted, no one would have followed him on a project that would have been obviously detrimental to the Parisians.
 
If the literal capital of a country is colonizing that country, the word has officially lost all meaning. At the very most you can get a semi-colonial relationship like South Italy in the Kingdom of Italy. This still doesn't apply to France. Look for whether the supposed colonial power sees the territory as an integral part of itself or not. This will guide you in accurately identifying colonialism.
 
If the literal capital of a country is colonizing that country, the word has officially lost all meaning. At the very most you can get a semi-colonial relationship like South Italy in the Kingdom of Italy. This still doesn't apply to France. Look for whether the supposed colonial power sees the territory as an integral part of itself or not. This will guide you in accurately identifying colonialism.
This is slightly problematic for a definition. Northern Algeria was seen as part of Metropolitan France, but was in a colonial relationship with France.
 
This is slightly problematic for a definition. Northern Algeria was seen as part of Metropolitan France, but was in a colonial relationship with France.

If that's fully true and not just a convenient fiction, then I'd say it's more akin to the relationship other states have with segregated and discriminated-against minorities. If you disagree, then can you give your own definition of "colonial territory"?
 
If that's fully true and not just a convenient fiction, then I'd say it's more akin to the relationship other states have with segregated and discriminated-against minorities. If you disagree, then can you give your own definition of "colonial territory"?
This is true. North Algeria was seen as French and was cut down into départements. Yet it depended from the Ministry to the Colonies and the majority of the population was disenfranchised.
To me, refering to it as a colony is probably sufficient. In Victoria terms, it would correspond to the "cores" mechanic.
It didn't help that most colonies were overseas.
 
This is slightly problematic for a definition. Northern Algeria was seen as part of Metropolitan France, but was in a colonial relationship with France.
Well.... the territory yes, was considered part of France itself but the people (the Algerians) do not.
I still consider the northern Africa a bit special... it was considered colonies but it it could be as all other territories conquered by a country and assimilated. If not religious difference (more important than the racial one IMHO), Algeria could become like Brittany or other region, especially if included earlier.

In 19 century the colonies and the racial discrimination were fashion. If previously it was need to a legitimate pretext to attack/conquer another country (a claim, a dispute, etc.), by 18 century this was replaced by the colonialism.
 
Last edited:
What one must remember is that Oil languages are largely mutually intelligible with each other. In this context what happened is more standardisation than anything else. The Francien theory that French is derived purely from a Paris based language has been discarded. French should been seen more as a standardised blend of all Oil languages.
 
What one must remember is that Oil languages are largely mutually intelligible with each other. In this context what happened is more standardisation than anything else. The Francien theory that French is derived purely from a Paris based language has been discarded. French should been seen more as a standardised blend of all Oil languages.
Not all. It was the Ile de France local patois which was chosen as reference, because it was the one the King spoke - albeit with large Angevin patois influences. But typically, I doubt that Walloon had an influence on modern French. At the establishment of the Académie Française, there was already a "mainstream French" which was derived from Parisien and Angevin with imports from other patois mostly depending on the amounts of time spent over there.
 
Not all. It was the Ile de France local patois which was chosen as reference, because it was the one the King spoke - albeit with large Angevin patois influences. But typically, I doubt that Walloon had an influence on modern French. At the establishment of the Académie Française, there was already a "mainstream French" which was derived from Parisien and Angevin with imports from other patois mostly depending on the amounts of time spent over there.
"Chocolatine"

I get that obviously the difference between Zambeze and Correze is major but there was a large amount of coercion in standardisation.
Again, not on the level of colonial violence, although it's also because resistance was less fierce. The central government has proven times and again that it will not tolerate dissensions (Vendee, the Commune...)
 
"Chocolatine"

I get that obviously the difference between Zambeze and Correze is major but there was a large amount of coercion in standardisation.
Again, not on the level of colonial violence, although it's also because resistance was less fierce. The central government has proven times and again that it will not tolerate dissensions (Vendee, the Commune...)
The Commune was parisian though.
 
"Chocolatine"

I get that obviously the difference between Zambeze and Correze is major but there was a large amount of coercion in standardisation.
Again, not on the level of colonial violence, although it's also because resistance was less fierce. The central government has proven times and again that it will not tolerate dissensions (Vendee, the Commune...)
"Pain au chocolat". :p
 
The Commune was parisian though.
True but the response was from the central government.

As I mentioned, my title is as clickbaity as a title for a pre-1900 history specialist forum can be but it's not exactly what I meant. Paris, as the seat of government. During the commune that was Versailles
 
Top