|
|
Does France deserve its name?
"Does inhabitants of nowaday Mexico still be aztecs after Spanish colonization ? "
Yes, the inhabitants of Mexico still carry the name of the Aztecs. The real name of the so-called "Aztecs" was the "Mexica". Tenochtitlan, the capital of their empire, was also called "Mexico", or "City of Mexico". The Spanish called the Mexica "Aztecs", because of their legendary origins of having come from a long ago forgotted land to the distant north, known to them as "Aztlan".
So, yes, to this day we carry the name of the people of Mexico.
Hi LAA,
Just for the records.
The territory of nowadays Mexico does not fit at all with the extension of the Aztec (Mexica) empire. There is a lot of territory (actually more than a half of the extension) which was never under the Aztec rule. At the time the Spaniards came here, it was the Aztecs who happened to be the dominant people, although since not such a long time (about 200 years only!!!).
But there was a number of other cultures which did not share anything with the Aztecs, except for being economically dominated by them.
So, by applying the same criterion, Mexico would not "deserve" its name either. But it was named so in a punctual historic moment, which does not reflect either the past history, or the whole extension of the land.
I think the same has happened to a lot of countries in the world.
Spain owes its name to an old Phoenician (or Cartaghian?) root meaning "place of rabits", so there is even less connection with its human inhabitants, but nobody cares nowadays about it.
That is true Sergio. The Mexica Empire, and their Nahuatl speaking cousins, like those of Texcoco, and Texcala, were limited to the central area of modern Mexico, with the farthest limit of Aztec imperial control was on the border of Central America. So, Mexico was named after the dominant people of the land at the time of the Spanish conquest. Remember, Tenochtitlan was one of the biggest cities in the world at the time, and Mexica civilization, was in many ways, more advanced than that of Europeans at the time. But the name of Mexico when applied to all of former New Spain, overlooks the existence of dozens of other peoples, like the Mixtecas, the Olmecas, the Mayas, the Janambre, the Tzacateca, the Toboso, the Hua, the Chicimecha, the Raramuri, the Pame, the Cora, the Otomi, the Michihuacanitl, the Acolhua, the Tecpaneca, the Purempecha, the Chimalhuaca, the Tzapoteca, the Chiapa, the Coatzalcoali, the Chololuah, and many others. And yes, I read a great deal about the history of Mexico.
But, at least we were named after one of the native inhabitants. Of all the peoples to choose from, the Mexica being the largest, and most dominant tribe, would seem to be the best choice. But, at least the Mexica were native to that land. The Franks were not native to Gaul. The natives of Gaul were the Romanized Gauls. Naming a country after its conqueror would be like having named Mexico after the Spanish, and calling it Espana. What is even more absurd, is that the Franks, far from Germanicizing the native population, were instead assimilated by the natives themselves. The Spanish hispanicized the native inhabitants of Mexico, and the land STILL bears the name of its native inhabitants. Most of southern and south-eastern Britain came to be called "England", and fittingly so, because the region became home to Germanic-Anglo-Saxon culture and language. Gaul did not become home to Frankish culture and language. It preserved its Gallic (Gallo-Roman, Latin) culture and language, and the native inhabitants remained the overwhelming majority. Therefore, I don't believe it merits the changing of its name, to represent something that it was not.
Hi LAA,
>But, at least the Mexica were native to that land...
Not quite true. Remember that they came originally far from the North... as I said, it was rather the importance of their power at the moment in which they were conquered which let an impact strong enough to influence on the name this land would take later. I think that the same happened in France. They were a minority, culturally, linguistically and numerically speaking, yes, they always were. But they left their print on the land, and in the moment France emerged, as greg says, as a political creation, it was still strong enough to influence the naming of this country.
So, in the end, this is in my opinion a relative matter. It would be impossible if it is fair or not, right or wrong.
" The Franks were not native to Gaul. "
Gauls were not either, like all Celts they were from central Europe.
" The natives of Gaul were the Romanized Gauls "
Why do you have problem to call them with their name: Gallo-Romans ? (who were not only descendants of romanized gauls by the way, but also pre celtic peoples, other romans, Greeks, etc.)
" Naming a country after its conqueror would be like having named Mexico after the Spanish "
"Latin America" is named after the conquerors culture, as far I know the indigenous people were not latin !
The island of Hait+Dom Rep is called "Hispaniola", named after Spain.
Colombia is named after the Genovese Cristobal Colombus, who was the first of a long serie of conquerors. The whole Continent of America was named after a European conqueror : Amerigo Vespuci (an Italian too, does it mean that Colombia and America are italian lands, or that they deserve their names ?) , etc.
" What is even more absurd, is that the Franks, far from Germanicizing the native population, were instead assimilated by the natives themselves. "
Franks are not our ancestors, they didn't gave us their culture, but they were the first people who created the political entity that is now called France; that is history had retained that name, that's all. Gauls were not our ancestors (contrary of the famous sentence), they didn't gave us their language and culture, they didn't created the political contruction that gave birth to the nation and they were not even natives of the land (celts are from central Europe), their culture dissapeared 2000 year ago...
" and the land STILL bears the name of its native inhabitants. "
Names are the fruit of hasards of history; Mexico/Mexicans derived its name from Mexicas (not MexicaNs!), but other countries' names have no link with the previous peoples : Costa Rica, USA, Argentina, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, and so on... etc. Quebec is a native indian name, it doesn't mean that Quebecers are natives indians or have indian culture.
Why don't you preach to change the names of Lombardia, Andalucia or Catalunia ? That the former roman empire lands took the names of the conquestants is not a specificity of France.
it was me in the last post
The post above the above post was mine.
Fab, I agree with you.
<<Not quite true. Remember that they came originally far from the North...>>
Yes, but they had been living in the Valley of Mexico for centuries. It took centuries for them to create an advanced civilization like their neighbors around them. A city as magnificent and large as Tenochtitlan would have taken centuries to build. The Mexica had inhabited this land for as long as recorded history could count. So, yes, they were native to that land.
"Why do you have problem to call them with their name: Gallo-Romans ? (who were not only descendants of romanized gauls by the way, but also pre celtic peoples, other romans, Greeks, etc.) "
I don't have a problem. Why do you have a problem calling them "Gauls"? And a Gaul, during the Roman Empire and afterwards, was a political term. Someone was a "Gaul" if they were a native or citizen of Gaul, whether their ethnic origin, was Italic-Roman, Greek, Celtic, Jews, or any mix of the above. Just as you say that a Frenchmen is a Frenchmen regardless of his ethnic origin. To you, and to most people, what defines a Frenchmen is not their ethnic origin, but the land in which they reside. So, a person of African ancestry who was born and raised in France, he would be just as French, as someone with the last name of "Bonet". By the end of the Roman empire, "Gallic" no longer applied strictly to the Celtic people, but instead reflected the melting pot of people that Gaul had become. So, when the textbooks say, "Our ancestors, the Gauls", they are not implying that the modern French are direct descendants of mainly Celtic people. They're saying that the traditional French people, are the descendants of the Gauls of the Roman Empire, who were themselves, a mix of Celt, "Latin", Greek, etc.
<<Latin America" is named after the conquerors culture, as far I know the indigenous people were not latin ! >>
That's because the people of LA are "Latin" in the linguistic, and cultural sense. They speak Latin languages, and are Roman Catholic. If the people of Latin America still mainly spoke native languages, and were not of Hispanic or Lusitanian culture, then they wouldn't be called "Latino-Americanos".
The Frankish empire or kingdom, was divided after the fall of Charlemagne. The divisions roughly ended up forming the modern day nation states of Germany, the Netherlands, and France. These countries were all part of the Frankish kingdom, known in Latin, as "Francia". Yet, of all the factions of the empire, the only major province which inheritied the name of the Franks, was Gaul/France. Despite the fact that most of the Franks did not live in Gaul. Despite the fact that Gaul was not of Frankish/Germanic culture, but of Latin culture. Despite the fact that the people of Gaul spoke a Romance language, and not a Germanic language as the other Frankish provinces did, such as the modern day Netherlands and Germany. Of all the former parts of the Frankish empire, Gaul/France least deserved the name of the Franks, or French. If any province should have been named after the Germanic Franks, it would have to be the modern day Netherlands and Germany. But, as is often times the case, history plays with irony.
" If any province should have been named after the Germanic Franks, it would have to be the modern day Netherlands and Germany. But, as is often times the case, history plays with irony. "
You just can't expect History to be logical and reational; Nobody was thinking to the implications of the name "francia" when it was first used. But that is just the way it was, as you said ironically "France" had its name from Franks, but not its culture and people, while Germany or Netherland had the people and language but not the name... That is not logical but that was the way it was, and since then France reffers to a land of western Europe with the romance-based culture known as "French", wich has nothing to day in meaning with "franks", only in etymology.
We could remember that after the division of Charlemagne empire, the other parts have been forming an empire called "holly Roman empire". Ironically it was the les romanized part of the Frankish former territory...
Rationally, if France should have been named after its dominant culture it should (and could) have been named something like "Romania", or "Romania occidentalis", "Romanica", "galloromania", etc.
" That's because the people of LA are "Latin" in the linguistic, and cultural sense. They speak Latin languages, and are Roman Catholic. If the people of Latin America still mainly spoke native languages, and were not of Hispanic or Lusitanian culture, then they wouldn't be called "Latino-Americanos". "
That would be logical, but it is not exaclty in that way that history has made that the word evoluted; On exemple would be Quebec, wich is in all points as much latin as Mexico (if not more), but which is not recognised as part of latin-America and Quebecers are not considers to be latin-Americans.
The other way, a lot of people in latin America are considered latin Americans but speak primarally indigenous languages (more than half of the population of countries such as Bolivia or Guatemala - should those countries excluded from latin America ? Logically they should.
fab said "The birth of the French nation and French people is a long process that began when the political construction that corresonded to the Romance territories of the Frankish Kingdom were separated after the division of Charlemagne's empire." I agree. That is why France should be named after the Franks and not the Gauls. The Gauls did not form the political unit that we now acknowledge as "France". The Franks did that. Just because the Gauls were more numerous, and they were there first, doesn't necessarily give them the distinction of having the territory that they inhabit named after them.
>The Mexica had inhabited this land for as long as recorded history could count.
This is not true. They lasted much lesser than other pre-hispanic cultures, and there are registers which are not longer than 4 centuries. Compare it with the Muslims in Spain (8 centuries)... don't believe evertything you read in the "Aztec" book. It's just a novel. A beautiful one by the way.
>So, yes, they were native to that land.
Again, in the punctual moment the name of "Mexico" was chosen, yes. But this name is still as arbitrary as France.
the above post was mine. I forgot to sign it again.
Just call it Gallia. It fits with Italia, Hispania, Britannia, Belgica, Germania. Why have these latter territories retained their names in one way or another?
Why does Germany go by these names: Romance Nations (Allemagne, Alemanha, Alemania, Germania); Germanic Nations (Tyskland, Duitsland, Deutschland); and other nations (Saksa, Németország, Niemcy, etc.)
France is called these in other nations: Frankrig, Frankrijk, Frankrike, Frankreich, França, Francia, Francja, Francia, Franciaország, Ranska, and other names by hundreds of other nations.
Almost every nation spells Portugal, Portugal except for a few; Hungarian: Portugália, Italian: Portogallo, Polish: Portugalia.
The point is, no matter what France calls/names itself. There will be other nations who will have their own name for other nations.
|