Why is Belgium so divided?

[Dandelion]

Yesterday a Flemish YouTuber uploaded a video trying to explain in short what lies at the roots of the division of Belgium and the difficulties of running the country. He's fairly knowledgeable but far from neutral, though I agree with most of his viewpoints of course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOW3b4rAQo

I am only slightly annoyed that he emphasises on Flemish so much, even when speaking about our language. He should know better.

Otherwise he identifies as Dutch-speaking and has pro-Dutch sentiments he admits he can barely hide, but just like myself he's no hardcore nationalist willing to stick out his neck for this cause because it's not worth it due to complications of splitting up Belgium altogether. Belgians, Dutch and French-speaking should also read the comments. Very interesting discussions which give a good idea about how many opinions exist on this issue (currently mainly Dutch-speakers are taking part, discussing in English lol).

[Tchek]

I'm going to watch this, I've only watched the first minute and I'm already triggered lol :lol: the linguistic divide has nothing to do with the french/HRE division (which is not correctly drawn in the vid, as the big majority of the french-speaking area was HRE and not France...) I'm going to watch the rest when I've time :)

[JohnSmith]

Yesterday a Flemish YouTuber uploaded a video trying to explain in short what lies at the roots of the division of Belgium and the difficulties of running the country. He's fairly knowledgeable but far from neutral, though I agree with most of his viewpoints of course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOW3b4rAQo

I am only slightly annoyed that he emphasises on Flemish so much, even when speaking about our language. He should know better.

Otherwise he identifies as Dutch-speaking and has pro-Dutch sentiments he admits he can barely hide, but just like myself he's no hardcore nationalist willing to stick out his neck for this cause because it's not worth it due to complications of splitting up Belgium altogether. Belgians, Dutch and French-speaking should also read the comments. Very interesting discussions which give a good idea about how many opinions exists on this issue (currently mainly Dutch-speakers are taking part, discussing in English lol).
Was Belgium even country before the Napoleonic wars? I believe Britain protected their neutrality after Napoleon era and when the Germans invaded in 1914 Britain only then got involved in WWI.

[Dandelion]

Was Belgium even country before the Napoleonic wars? I believe Britain protected their neutrality after Napoleon era and when the Germans invaded in 1914 Britain only then got involved in WWI.

Well, yes and no. Before that we were part of the Austrian Netherlands (Habsburg Netherlands) and in the case of Liège and Limburg (roughly) part of the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. Both part of the HRE anyway.

[Peterski]

Belgium will be united again when Muslims become the majority in both Flanders and Wallonia.

[Mingle]

Even though many of us like to poke fun at Western Europeans for being self-hating and all that, it's really admirable that stuff like ethnic-based nationalism/separatism is actually a significant factor there to some degree.

There are many countries where some regions are richer than the others, but for some reason Belgium stands out.

My theory as to why Belgium stands out (didn't watch the video btw):

1. There are only two main regions in Belgium with somewhat similar populations. These two regions have a somewhat uniform culture on their own, but there is enough distinctiveness to put them at odds with each other. Other countries don't have only two main cultural lands, but a couple (Germany has Bavaria, Thuringia, BD, etc; Spain has Catalonia, Andalusia, Galicia, etc). I am aware there is a German-speaking community but they are too small to mention.

2. The French language. Frenchies tend to be very passionate about their language. The majority of the population is Dutch, yet French is treated as equal with it or even better than it e.g. Flemings are more likely to learn French than vice versa and the capital Brussels is mainly French-speaking. This divides the country a lot. I have a feeling that if the French were the majority or Wallonia was German instead, then this wouldn't be that much of an issue.

3. Belgium being a new nation. It was only founded in 1830 as an independent nation. Prior to that, it had more shared history with the Netherlands than with Wallonia so a strong Belgian identity didn't take much time to develop. Also (with the exception of the French), in recent times, very few countries suppressed minority groups. In Belgium, the Walloons were not oppressed. There was some oppression of Flemish during the French occupation (keeping in mind this was before Belgium was founded), but it wasn't that long. Both Flemish nationalism and Walloon nationalism were allowed to prosper since the founding of Belgium.

Now, you might want to compare it to Switzerland? Why is Switzerland so much more united than Belgium is?

1. Switzerland (which started as a Alleman-German state) annexed the French regions significantly before Belgium was founded, so it has a bit more history.

2. Switzerland is divided into several cantons, many of whom have mixed populations. If Switzerland was divided into two main regions: Romandy (French-Switzerland) and another German entity, then things might have turned out more similar to Belgium but it didn't. Also, keep in mind that the Swiss cantons each have a large degree of autonomy. So basically after Switzerland annexed the French-speaking lands, they were integrated quickly and ended up with similar autonomy to everyone else, so separatism never really became an issue.

3. Swiss neutrality. Switzerland became neutral in 1815. Since then it has not really been bothered by anyone nor has it bothered anyone. Interestingly enough, it was also occupied by the French around the same time Belgium was (known as the "Helvetic Republic" then which is where it's current official name comes from). I feel like this has put Switzerland at a sense of peace and since no neighboring countries have ever claimed any of their regions in a long time nor has there been separatism there in a long time, separatism there hasn't really popped up.

[Dandelion]

Belgium will be united again when Muslims become the majority in both Flanders and Wallonia.

Mocking Sweden might not be wise coming from Belgium, but I still rest my case there. Their political correctness is off the charts and nearly unthinkable here at least. It is believed to be due to their Scandinavian Law of Jante mentality... Our restriction of the mind is rather provincialism and apathy than the bullying of opposing views from the state doctrine like we see in Sweden.

[Dandelion]

I'm going to watch this, I've only watched the first minute and I'm already triggered lol :lol: the linguistic divide has nothing to do with the french/HRE division (which is not correctly drawn in the vid, as the big majority of the french-speaking area was HRE and not France...) I'm going to watch the rest when I've time :)

I see what you mean. It's a disappointment that he didn't do his homework here, as those borders are very well-known and mentioned in most history books tackling the time period. Even Wiki and Google could've sufficed for him.

I listened to the beginning of the video instead of watching.

However I cut him some slack as he's summarising our history for laymen in a short video. But his maps should be correct, I agree there. No excuses.

[Mingle]

Was Belgium even country before the Napoleonic wars? I believe Britain protected their neutrality after Napoleon era and when the Germans invaded in 1914 Britain only then got involved in WWI.

It was just the Austrian Netherlands like Danielion said, but it wasn't called Belgium then. The United Belgian States were established in 1790 in an anti-Hapsburg revolt known as the Brabant Revolution. I think that is when the name Belgium first came. So technically, yes. But the UBS isn't a predecessor state to modern day Belgium which first came into existence in 1830.

[Dandelion]

It was just the Austrian Netherlands like Danielion said, but it wasn't called Belgium then. The United Belgian States were established in 1790 in an anti-Hapsburg revolt known as the Brabant Revolution. I think that is when the name Belgium first came. So technically, yes. But the UBS isn't a predecessor state to modern day Belgium which first came into existence in 1830.

The declaration of independent of the United Belgian States was written both in Dutch as in French, by the way. Belgium would later only recognise French as its only language. Some theories say that Flemish people also revolted against the Dutch language from the Netherlands. That either means many of our people had fallen that low that they've become severely ignorant or it's just propaganda because of the anti-Dutch character of early Belgium.

There did used to exist pastors and even bishops who clamoured against the 'so-called Dutch literature' and how it was a source of 'godlessness and protestant heresy', especially in West Flanders. These people did exist, but their call for a separate Flemish language always was shoved back in the closet by most Dutch-speaking intellectuals, even when they were underdogs in the early 19th century.

I myself hate them through and through, those provincialists. I compare them to Moldovans which Soviet Russians happily abused in their divida-et-impera politics.

[JohnSmith]

In all honesty countries with a lot of division even in Europe seems to really have a harder time. Northern Ireland and Belgium have both had many struggles in the last 50 years. Belgium had economic problems and Northern Ireland had sectarian problems. Both seem to be doing much better now. However, Belgium has a lot of places that are basically ungovernable due to radicals.

[Dandelion]

There did used to exist pastors and even bishops who clamoured against the 'so-called Dutch literature' and how it was a source of 'godlessness and protestant heresy', especially in West Flanders. These people did exist, but their call for a separate Flemish language always was shoved back in the closet by most Dutch-speaking intellectuals, even when they were underdogs in the early 19th century.


Correction. A bishop whose name escapes me once said we should be wary equally for the 'demon' of the protestant heresy of the 'so-called' Dutch literature as much as that of the godlessness of the French culture. Dutch were and still are more religious than French. Yes, those were roughly his pompous words (he said demon, that part I remember very well).

I might give you his name as soon as I find out, no promises. Didn't make this up. He was against our language being considered Dutch and would given the chance explain that to a Dutchman in a language he can understand. A language I consider Dutch as does a Dutch person listening in on him giving his anti-Dutch preach. Such idiocy. :p

[Dandelion]

Also ironically. Charles De Coster was a Francophone Belgian from Liège who was of mixed Flemish and Walloon heritage. He was very anti-clerical and also interested in his Dutch-speaking roots which he'd use as a theme for his books, most notably 'The Legend of Thyl Ulenspiegel and Lamme Goedzak'. The book was set during the Revolt in the late 16th century and sympathising with the Gueux/Geuzen. :p

That book was popular in France, but ignored in Belgium due to it going against the standards of Belgian nationalism.

The very same Charles De Coster hated the Flemish Movement. Why? For different reasons than most Francophones. He hated them because it was dominated by the Belgian Catholic Church which he believed kept Flemish people ignorant. He also differentiated between Brabantians and Flemish still. You can still see this in modern language to this day. The Tour of Flanders for instance takes place in historical Flanders not in the entire Flemish Region.

[Dandelion]

Appears Hilbert is Dutch, not Flemish. Alright. I got confused because he's strongly opinionated about this. He's most likely from North Brabant or Limburg, or even Zeelandic Flanders. That's why I probably didn't hear by his accent. I usually still do.

[Tchek]

3. Belgium being a new nation. It was only founded in 1830 as an independent nation. Prior to that, it had more shared history with the Netherlands than with Wallonia.
The region known today as Wallonia has always been historically linked to the Netherlands. It was the roman (speaking) part of it.

[Tchek]

Also ironically. Charles De Coster was a Francophone Belgian from Liège who was of mixed Flemish and Walloon heritage. He was very anti-clerical and also interested in his Dutch-speaking roots which he'd use as a theme for his books, most notably 'The Legend of Thyl Ulenspiegel and Lamme Goedzak'. The book was set during the Revolt in the late 16th century and sympathising with the Gueuex/Geuzen. :p
Or Guy de Namur fighting for Flanders and Godfried Van Brabant fighting for the French in 1302...
Actually, Orangists (while not a majority) were very numerous in Liège (mostly industrialists).
After all under the Dutch, the University was built, the Opera... I'm struggling to think of something noteworthy that has been built in 180 years of Belgium in Wallonia (in Brussels on the other hand...).
... I can think of many things that have been destroyed though, not only by wars.

[Dandelion]

Or Guy de Namur fighting for Flanders and Godfried Van Brabant fighting for the French in 1302...
Actually, Orangists (while not a majority) were very numerous in Liège (mostly industrialists).
After all under the Dutch, the University was built, the Opera... I'm struggling to think of something noteworthy that has been built in 180 years of Belgium in Wallonia (in Brussels on the other hand...).
... I can think of many things that have been destroyed though, not only by wars.

The most famous example of destruction I can think of for Liège was the Saint Lambert's Cathedral during the Liège Revolution in 1789 which is was very inspired by the French Revolution. Otherwise I guess early industrialisation had changed the landscape considerably later during the Belgian era. As for Brussels being more developed, isn't that also due to the fact Belgium was modelled after France in its early days? Even if France, however, is less centralised than it used to be or seeking to step out of that mentality.

[Magnolia]

Because Belgium is a fake country. It should be divided between France, Holland and Germany.

[Peterski]

Because Belgium is a fake country.

Then for example the UK is a fake country too.

[Dandelion]

Most countries are artificial to an extent in fact.

[Autrigón]

Because Belgium is a fake country. It should be divided between France, Holland and Germany.In some aspects all the countries are fake.

[Tchek]

The most famous example of destruction I can think of for Liège was the Saint Lambert's Cathedral during the Liège Revolution in 1789 which is was very inspired by the French Revolution. Otherwise I guess early industrialisation had changed the landscape considerably later during the Belgian era. As for Brussels being more developed, isn't that also due to the fact Belgium was modelled after France in its early days? Even if France, however, is less centralised than it used to be or seeking to step out of that mentality.
Yes, Brussels got all the good shit due to centralization.
I was talking more about modern destruction of historical buildings for ugly modern buildings...

(continuing the video: the guy is biased and when he says that the border went upward... not true either: only in French flanders was frenchified, in Belgium the border is more or less the same as it always was (even though it was more mixed, and less water and oil), I feel the guy is quite biased)

The guy is Dutch then... these past few years I saw more and more dutch people being opiniated about Belgium. I'm far less pro-Dutch than you are for sure :D

[Mingle]

Then for example the UK is a fake country too.It is, and are the vast majority of Asian and African countries.

But at least with the UK, it is sort of seen like a unification of different countries rather than a distinct nation in it's own right.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Magnolia]

It is, and are the vast majority of Asian and African countries.

But at least with the UK, it is sort of seen like a unification of different countries rather than a distinct nation in it's own right.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

It isn't; Belgium is such a small country and they speak three languages! wtf...

[Gold-Shekel]

It isn't; Belgium is such a small country and they speak three languages! wtf...

Realistically only two languages. The German parts were taken over by Belgium in 1919.

[Magnolia]

Realistically only two languages. The German parts were taken over by Belgium in 1919.

6 governments... that country is fake.

[Mingle]

It isn't; Belgium is such a small country and they speak three languages! wtf...Ethnicity matters more than language. The UK is made up of the English, Scottish, and Welsh as the three main ethnic groups.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Magnolia]

Ethnicity matters more than language. The UK is made up of the English, Scottish, and Welsh as the three main ethnic groups.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

So they speak French, Dutch and German because they have the same ethnicity? :)

[Mingle]

So they speak French, Dutch and German because they have the same ethnicity? :)I acknowledge that Belgium is an artificial country. I was just agreeing with Litvin that the UK is an artificial country as well.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Gold-Shekel]

6 governments... that country is fake.

No it's called a decentralized state. It works really well, in fact so well that even without a government for a year the average guy didn't feel anything change negatively.

[Dandelion]

So they speak French, Dutch and German because they have the same ethnicity? :)

The thing is. It's not easy splitting up Belgium and it neither is easy merging with the Netherlands and France. I believe one of the reasons Belgium survived the political crisis of 2011 is the fact that Brussels complicated the split of Belgium, combined with the fact that most common citizens are very stubbornly proponents of keeping Belgium together, even I am not truly against that.

Keep in mind that Czechoslovakia split due to politicians disagreeing and not being able to make compromises, the Czechs nor the Slovaks had any vote in it. The difference is that for Czechoslovakia it was very easy to do painlessly. For Belgium that is far less the case.

Very interesting because Czechs and Slovaks understand each other's language, whereas Dutch- and French-speakers have a linguistic barrier dividing us extra.

[Magnolia]

No it's called a decentralized state. It works really well, in fact so well that even without a government for a year the average guy didn't feel anything change negatively.

It is like that because without it they would be able to fight with each other...

[Gold-Shekel]

It is like that because without it they would be able to fight with each other...

No, it's just being smart. What point is there in a Flemish guy deciding how Walloons are going to teach French?

[Dandelion]

No it's called a decentralized state. It works really well, in fact so well that even without a government for a year the average guy didn't feel anything change negatively.

Thanks to regional governments. We just didn't have a federal government for over a year. For 589 days and it was due to Francophone parties and Flemish parties failing to resolve the conflict over the electoral arrondissement of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. Our instability did ironically lower again after the French-speaking Socialists were driven to the opposition due to the French-speaking liberal agreeing to form a coalition with the Flemish nationalist N-VA. Before that they tried to keep them out of power with inefficient monster coalitions. Ignoring 30% of the Flemish voters made it very difficult for other Flemish parties to form an agreement that wouldn't cost them their votes, and ultimately they agreed upon governing with a Flemish minority until that government fell in favour of a right wing government.

Ironically allowing the Flemish nationalist to enter the federal government, Belgium became again a more stable country that doesn't seem to be doomed as people assumed at the time.

[Magnolia]

No, it's just being smart. What point is there in a Flemish guy deciding how Walloons are going to teach French?

Yes smart and probably better being pragmatical. When a fake state exists leaders have to be pragmatical.

[Gold-Shekel]

Thanks to regional governments. We just didn't have a federal government for over a year. For 589 days and it was due to Francophone parties and Flemish parties failing to resolve the conflict over the electoral arrondissement of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. Our instability did ironically lowered again after the French-speaking Socialists were driven to the opposition due to the French-speaking liberal agreeing to form a coalition with the Flemish nationalist N-VA. Before that they tried to keep them out of power with inefficient monster coalitions.
Ironically allowing the Flemish nationalist to enter the federal government, Belgium became again a more stable country that doesn't seem to be doomed as people assumed at the time.

The demonization of NVA was huge in the South's media but they're really similar to MR. I find it funny Walloons are mad at NVA for being nationalistic while all Walloon parties are as Nationalistic and often down-right condescending towards the Flemish. I think that the PS is done though, we won't have any troubles of that kind anymore as its replacement PTB/PVDA is a unitary party with actual socialist values.



Yes smart and probably better being pragmatical. When a fake state exists leaders have to be pragmatical.

How is it fake? It's been occupying an annexed part of Germany for 100 years and it is the center of Europe. You're mistaking State and Nation.

[Dandelion]

The demonization of NVA was huge in the South's media but they're really similar to MR. I find it funny Walloons are mad at NVA for being nationalistic while all Walloon parties are as Nationalistic and often down-right condescending towards the Flemish. I think that the PS is done though, we won't have any troubles of that kind anymore as its replacement PTB/PVDA is a unitary party with actual socialist values.




How is it fake? It's been occupying an annexed part of Germany for 100 years and it is the center of Europe. You're mistaking State and Nation.

Also funny because they're communists. Due to a corruption scandal of PS politicians embezzling funds meant to help the homeless, actual communists have become more popular to what once was the largest party in Francophone Belgium. :p

They do have a troubled history, though, the PVDA. One of their papers even once praised the North Korean Kim dynasty. If anything, they might catalyse a Belgian split should they ever become large enough.

This is the front page of their weekly in 1994.

https://rechtsactueel.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/voorpagina.jpg?w=636&h=814

Nowadays they avoid taking the word communist in their mouth, except for this guy.

http://www.knack.be/medias/11269/5769857.jpg

He's fairly eloquent and popular and just calls himself what he is, a communist.

Their party was projected to get 24,9% of the Walloon votes in a survey taken in July 2017. Interesting election ahead.

[Gold-Shekel]

Also funny because they're communists. Due to a corruption scandal of PS politicians embezzling funds meant to help the homeless, actual communists have become more popular to what once was the largest party in Francophone Belgium. :p

They do have a troubled history, though, the PVDA. One of their papers even once praised the North Korean Kim dynasty. If anything, they might catalyse a Belgian split should they ever become large enough.

This is the front page of their weekly in 1994.

https://rechtsactueel.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/voorpagina.jpg?w=636&h=814

Well, I wouldn't really call them Communists, if you read their program they actually seem to be what socialists were in the beginning (before sons of politicians took positions in Socialist parties). While that frontpage might seem shocking today, North Korea wasn't percieved as negatively then as it is now, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union nobody really cared about it, plus today as it is bigger it has to dial down on the leftist extremism (in the same sense as the NVA isn't really a nationalist party when it isn't in campaign mode). I think that they can make a change just by being represented as Belgium's political scene has been the same for more than 20 years and especially in Wallonia where the Socialists have never really lost, in some places it has been 100 years since a non-Socialist has ruled. (When I say socialist I imply PS)

[Dandelion]

Well, I wouldn't really call them Communists, if you read their program they actually seem to be what socialists were in the beginning (before sons of politicians took positions in Socialist parties). While that frontpage might seem shocking today, North Korea wasn't percieved as negatively then as it is now, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union nobody really cared about it, plus today as it is bigger it has to dial down on the leftist extremism (in the same sense as the NVA isn't really a nationalist party when it isn't in campaign mode). I think that they can make a change just by being represented as Belgium's political scene has been the same for more than 20 years and especially in Wallonia where the Socialists have never really lost, in some places it has been 100 years since a non-Socialist has ruled. (When I say socialist I imply PS)

The PS to Wallonia is what the CD&V is to us. Generations of people voting for them as the status quo, especially old people and those parties being quite corrupt.

[Gold-Shekel]

The PS to Wallonia is what the CD&V is to us. Generations of people voting for them as the status quo, especially old people and those parties being quite corrupt.

I think the reason they get those repeted votes is because of the lack of interest in politics by most Belgians while voting is compulsary. They can only be changed by the threat of so-called "extreme" parties. I have to admit though that I find the average PTB enthusiast is smarter than the average MR or PS guy, which is kind of worrying if you think about it.

[Dandelion]

I think the reason they get those repeted votes is because of the lack of interest in politics by most Belgians while voting is compulsary. They can only be changed by the threat of so-called "extreme" parties. I have to admit though that I find the average PTB enthusiast is smarter than the average MR or PS guy, which is kind of worrying if you think about it.

Ideologues tend to be more radical and able to back their ideology. Most communists are very intelligent people, but that doesn't mean they are good at governing.

I am quite wary of them Peter Mertens, the president of the PVDA/PTB only rejected Stalinism and Maoism in an interview as late as 2008 (in the newspaper De Morgen). Just even ever having been a proponent of Stalinism alone is quite worrisome to me.

That will also follow him until the end of his political career.

[Gold-Shekel]

Ideologies tend to be more radical and able to back their ideology. Most communists are very intelligent people, but that doesn't mean they are good at governing.

I am quite wary of them Peter Mertens, the president of the PVDA/PTB only rejected Stalinism and Maoism in an interview as late as 2008 (in the newspaper De Morgen). Just even ever having been a proponent of Stalinism alone is quite worrisome to me.

That will also follow him until the end of his political career.


I'm not sure how a Stalinist would do in a country like Belgium. Imagine for a second that PTV/PVDA gets to power (like 100 percent), Belgium's nature would impeach a total rule as the linguistic identities will surfact, they'd probably have a bigger linguistic conflict than there ever was before.

[Tchek]

I forgot that the guy from the video totally occulted the catholic/protestant factor, which is quite central.

[Magnolia]

@ Dani, what ethincity are you? Flemish?

[Dandelion]

@ Dani, what ethincity are you? Flemish?

I am. Flemish is a pars-pro-toto name in origin, though. It is what they call Dutch-speakers in Belgium nowadays.

Still would be weird calling us Dutch today because state nationalism, but historically we're Southern Dutch. Doesn't mean we haven't went a separate course than people in the Netherlands even the Southern provinces.

So yes, I am Flemish but from Antwerp which was historically Brabantian and where a Brabantian dialect gets spoken.

[Ouistreham]

I'm going to watch this, I've only watched the first minute and I'm already triggered lol :lol: the linguistic divide has nothing to do with the french/HRE division (which is not correctly drawn in the vid, as the big majority of the french-speaking area was HRE and not France...) I'm going to watch the rest when I've time :)
Yes, this is painful.
The guy is absolutely clueless. He loses all credit from the first minute.
Any serious high-school pupil is supposed to know that, while historical Flanders (= west of the Scheldt River) was throughout the Middle-Ages part of the Kingdom of France, the French speaking provinces of present-day Belgium belonged to the HRE, along with Lorraine, Eastern Burgundy and Provence!

I especially love this one:
"Atrecht is the Flemish (and real) name for the place the French speakers now call Arras"
This is pathetic...

[Tchek]

I think the reason they get those repeted votes is because of the lack of interest in politics by most Belgians while voting is compulsary. They can only be changed by the threat of so-called "extreme" parties. I have to admit though that I find the average PTB enthusiast is smarter than the average MR or PS guy, which is kind of worrying if you think about it.

The complete demoralization and lack of interest + compulsory vote are a big problem for PS votes... the PTB voter is closer to a Melenchon/Sanders type of voter, young, rather educated, full of enthusiasm and naivety but will get screwed at the end.
Remove compulsory vote and create a francophone NVA type of party (not the spineless MR) and their votes would go through the roof in Wallonia. Even Jan Jambon said "if we removed our wallonia-bashing rhetoric, we would be the most popular party over there".

[Ouistreham]

I forgot that the guy from the video totally occulted the catholic/protestant factor, which is quite central.
Yes. To summarize:
• At the time the Netherlands and Belgium split, the latter was both more populous and wealthier, and saw no point at obeying a Protestant crown that represented only a minority of its own kingdom.
• (Please take notice that this unstable situation was precisely predating what modern Flanders represents within Belgium)
• The soon-to-be Belgians were well aware of it. They therefore set up an Unholy Alliance between the anticlerical liberal Walloon leadership and the Flemish Catholics. The winning combination.
• (That was the first of the rotten political compromises that have become since then as much a Belgian specialty as Brussels sprouts, waffles or Trappist ales)
• The Dutch Kingdom was rather backwards, pre-revolutionary leaning. But Belgium (from 1830 on) introduced the world's most advanced democratic constitution known at that time.
• Well, in the beginning. Because only citizens who could prove they payed a given level of taxes were allowed to vote. The richest ones, in short. Who happened to be in Flanders the French speaking upper class.
• Hence we had a country with over 55% Dutch speakers where members of Parliament were about 80% French speakers. Voting right for all citizens wasn't introduced before 1919...
The Flemish people still remember.

Now, of course, Belgium is not a nation, is a fake country, but is not a fake State. A State that has been working on its own special way for over 180 years can't be a brittle construct. It's very robust, and very special. Most non-Belgians can't understand how it works. It's based upon vary many political parties, very powerful unions (connected with the social zuilen —pillars— the society is structured with), and everyone can have a reasonable hope of becoming a minister in some local government.

[Dandelion]

Yes, this is painful.
The guy is absolutely clueless. He loses all credit from the first minute.
Any serious high-school pupil is supposed to know that, while historical Flanders (= west of the Scheldt River) was throughout the Middle-Ages part of the Kingdom of France, the French speaking provinces of present-day Belgium belonged to the HRE, along with Lorraine, Eastern Burgundy and Provence!

I especially love this one:
"Atrecht is the Flemish (and real) name for the place the French speakers now call Arras"
This is pathetic...

Yeah. I agree. I tend to cut people who make a video about this subject too much slack too early because it's rarely tackled.

[Tchek]

Yes, this is painful.
The guy is absolutely clueless. He loses all credit from the first minute.
Any serious high-school pupil is supposed to know that, while historical Flanders (= west of the Scheldt River) was throughout the Middle-Ages part of the Kingdom of France, the French speaking provinces of present-day Belgium belonged to the HRE, along with Lorraine, Eastern Burgundy and Provence!
-
I especially love this one:
"Atrecht is the Flemish (and real) name for the place the French speakers now call Arras"
This is pathetic...

:lol:

Yes, the guy has a pro-Dutch agenda (he is Dutch); but at the same time, his ideas are very widespread these days... 10 years ago, the Dutch didn't care about Belgium, the same way Americans care about Canada; now, I've seen more and more Dutchmen adopting the Flemish nationalist rhetoric but a very caricatural version of it. You could see the laughable French/HRE borders he did in the video and the upward arrows implying the "French invaded the sacred and eternal Dutch soil" (the linguistic border barely ever moved).

There is that idea, among some flemish (and Dutch) nationalists, that "the original land is Dutch/Flemish and French is an invading element"; history is more complicated than that and we are all invaders at some point. (Besides the fact Arras never was Dutch-speaking)

While the idea that the modern region of Flanders being Dutch-speaking is accepted, there *is* an historical presence of romance-speaking people in the Benelux (and Western Germany) for centuries. A minority but an historical minority. It didn't pop up after Napoleonic invasion (yeah I've heard serious people saying that lol) or something.

[Dandelion]

While the idea that the modern region of Flanders being Dutch-speaking is accepted, there *is* an historical presence of romance-speaking people in the Benelux (and Western Germany) for centuries. A minority but an historical minority. It didn't pop up after Napoleonic invasion (yeah I've heard serious people saying that lol) or something.

Reason Belgium hasn't signed the charter for minority and regional languages is because the Flemish Region don't deem recognising French as an official language a good idea, due to likely Frenchification it might catalyse.
Also a very historical phenomenon. Back in the Burgundian era the Hollanders once rebelled against French being imposed as the administrative language and Flemish bureaucrats being sent to Holland as middlemen. Little known history. :) Back in that era Flanders was more wealthy than Brabant, though, Bruges was the most important harbour city of the Low Countries.

[Gold-Shekel]

The complete demoralization and lack of interest + compulsory vote are a big problem for PS votes... the PTB voter is closer to a Melenchon/Sanders type of voter, young, rather educated, full of enthusiasm and naivety but will get screwed at the end.
Remove compulsory vote and create a francophone NVA type of party (not the spineless MR) and their votes would go through the roof in Wallonia. Even Jan Jambon said "if we removed our wallonia-bashing rhetoric, we would be the most popular party over there".

The main issue is that it isn't limited to PS, MR voters are exactly the same, they're usually sons of people who have a small bar or something who fail to see that even though in theory they aren't proletarian in the true sense of the word, they're exactly in the same position as the average worker, they tend to look down on workers too. CDh is considered weak and like "swingers", they will follow whoever has the power. Ecolo, they're non-existant.

NVA was innovative (from a Walloon point of view), they weren't going to be just another Flemish party, they were going to be THE Flemish party and it's exactly what they are, they didn't succeed immediately but in the end they succeeded. I find it funny that Bart De Wever seems like a campaign mascot though, it seems like he doesn't really care about being on a national position personally. Meanwhile in Wallonia the only party which seems innovative is PTB but I have a feeling they're going to last only a little time as they're pussyfooting, they don't have the balls in my opinion. I think that left or right doesn't really matter in this day, but you're right, the south really needs a party with balls.

[Tchek]

• The soon-to-be Belgians were well aware of it. They therefore set up an Unholy Alliance between the anticlerical liberal Walloon leadership and the Flemish Catholics. The winning combination.


Yes but it wasn't much a walloon/flemish thing. For example, Belgium's motto "L'union fait la force/Eendracht maakt macht" is not the union between flemish and wallons as commonly said, but "between Belgians and Liègeois". Belgians=those who did the Brabantic Revolution (counter-revolution, Most flemings and quite a few Wallons) and Liègeois=those who did the local version of the French revolution, who were not even considered Belgians until later. Yes, this kind of alliance, which is typically Belgian is consider surreal in France for example.



• Well, in the beginning. Because only citizens who could prove they payed a given level of taxes were allowed to vote. The richest ones, in short. Who happened to be in Flanders the French speaking upper class.
• Hence we had a country with over 55% Dutch speakers where members of Parliament were about 80% French speakers. Voting right for all citizens wasn't introduced before 1919...
The Flemish people still remember.

Well, the problem here is that the french-speakers will consider it a class issue, while the Flemish will consider it a communautarian issue. I still believe the class factor is a more correct one as languages move faster in Belgium than classes. A lot of rich Flemings turned to French historically, while today a lot of rich Francophones put their kids in Dutch-speaking schools (like the Belgian prime minister's kids and the King's kids, they are turning dutch-speaking), lots of language shifts; whereas Classes don't move much, rich people tend to stay rich and poor people tend to stay poor. So, the language prism of history is a misleading one.


Now, of course, Belgium is not a nation, is a fake country, but is not a fake State. A State that has been working on its own special way for over 180 years can't be a brittle construct. It's very robust, and very special. Most non-Belgians can't understand how it works.

Depends. It's not a wholesome coherent nation, true; still, the population is very very historically rooted. The state was (contrary to popular belief) very stable and effective; the reason why it isn't anymore is due to German invasions and the Flamenpolitik (Germans are the ones who divided the country) and various fifth columns (weirdly enough: an undisclosed document showed that De Gaulle financed Flemish nationalism* in the hope of breaking up the country) plus the coalition of international press trying very hard to bash Belgian institutions for decades. Otherwise it used to be an effective state.


*Maybe Danielion can translate a bit of this, I can understand a bit but not all :

https://www.slideshare.net/thierrydebels/vlaamsnationalisten-kregen-geld-van-frankrijk

[Dandelion]

*Maybe Danielion can translate a bit of this, I can understand a bit but not all :

https://www.slideshare.net/thierrydebels/vlaamsnationalisten-kregen-geld-van-frankrijk

It's about the student revolts of 1968 in Leuven. It also mentions that De Gaulle financed Flemish nationalists in their actions, but with the hope to widen the animosity between French- and Dutch-speakers in Belgium so France would benefit from it and possibly could expand. No idea. De Gaulle was of the generation of old fashioned chauvinistic nationalism, though.

I'm repeating as you read, but it truly is the focus of the slides. You got it right. :p

It also concluded that there is no reason not to assume foreign powers are manipulating the populace for their agenda today.

[Tchek]

It's about the student revolts of 1968 in Leuven. It also mentions that De Gaulle financed Flemish nationalists in their actions, but with the hope to widen the animosity between French- and Dutch-speakers in Belgium so France would benefit from it and possibly could expand. No idea. De Gaulle was of the generation of old fashioned chauvinistic nationalism, though.

I'm repeating as you read, but it truly is the focus of the slides. You got it right. :p

It also concluded that there is no reason not to assume foreign powers are manipulating the populace for their agenda today.

Thanks, it's crazy that they don't even know that document in France. I think De Gaulle was the last French president to be aware about Belgium affairs.

[Peterski]

Yesterday a Flemish YouTuber uploaded a video trying to explain in short what lies at the roots of the division of Belgium and the difficulties of running the country. He's fairly knowledgeable but far from neutral, though I agree with most of his viewpoints of course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOW3b4rAQo

I am only slightly annoyed that he emphasises on Flemish so much, even when speaking about our language. He should know better.

Otherwise he identifies as Dutch-speaking and has pro-Dutch sentiments he admits he can barely hide, but just like myself he's no hardcore nationalist willing to stick out his neck for this cause because it's not worth it due to complications of splitting up Belgium altogether. Belgians, Dutch and French-speaking should also read the comments. Very interesting discussions which give a good idea about how many opinions exist on this issue (currently mainly Dutch-speakers are taking part, discussing in English lol).

He claims Brussels would be an enclave.

But are places like Braine-le-Chateau, Waterloo and La Hulpe really mostly Flemish-speaking towns?

The names of all three sound more French.

They are pretty much on the outskirts of Brussels, so I think there is a continuous Walloon area there.

Between Waterloo and Brussels, there is only a forest with no inhabitants, according to Google Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brussels,+Belgium/@50.7414217,4.3647305,15234m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c3c486740f9fff:0x10099 ab2f4c8030!8m2!3d50.8503463!4d4.3517211

So in case of a partition, Brussels would just go to Wallonia, together with this forest and the 3 towns.

[Peterski]

It also mentions that De Gaulle financed Flemish nationalists in their actions, but with the hope to widen the animosity between French- and Dutch-speakers in Belgium so France would benefit from it and possibly could expand. No idea. De Gaulle was of the generation of old fashioned chauvinistic nationalism, though.

De Gaulle was the last great leader in French history.

[Peterski]

France was always very successful at Frenchization of Dutch/Flemish-speakers and German-speakers.

Which is why that You Tuber is so salty (as he admitted), but nobody in France cares about his tears.

We must emulate French methods when Polonizing Western Ukrainians after we take back Lwów area.

[Gold-Shekel]

France was always very successful at Frenchization of Dutch/Flemish-speakers and German-speakers.

Which is why that You Tuber is so salty (as he admitted), but nobody in France cares about his tears.

We must emulate French methods when Polonizing Western Ukrainians after we take back Lwów area.

Don't get too ambitious or you'll become part of Russia & Germany.

[Peterski]

Don't get too ambitious or you'll become part of Russia & Germany.

Germany is falling apart and Russians are our Slavic friends.

The Polish-Russian border shall be much longer in the future.

[Gold-Shekel]

Germany is falling apart and Russians are our Slavic friends.

The Polish-Russian border shall be much longer in the future.

Fact is, Slavic brotherhood doesn't exist and Russians would rather have a weaker Poland than a stronger one. Ukraine has failed, but everyone likes it that way.

Germany isn't as weak as it seems.

[Peterski]

Fact is, Slavic brotherhood doesn't exist and Russians would rather have a weaker Poland than a stronger one. Ukraine has failed, but everyone likes it that way. Germany isn't as weak as it seems.

You are delusional. Russia has offered Poland a joint partition of Ukraine already back in 2014.

Germany has no army and in ca. 100 years time it will be a Turkish-speaking Muslim Caliphate.

Which is not so bad by the way because Turks and Poles respect each other.

[Peterski]

I also like that President Trump is so Pro-Russian, and that Polish and Israeli prime ministers have signed a joint declaration.

I see a formation of American-Russian-Polish-Israeli right wing "Axis" in the future, if Republicans continue to rule the USA:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6tLOTPRUHQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx5l6ayeLrw

[Gold-Shekel]

You are delusional. Russia has offered Poland a joint partition of Ukraine already back in 2014.

Germany has no army and in ca. 100 years time it will be a Turkish-speaking Muslim Caliphate.

Which is not so bad by the way because Turks and Poles respect each other.

ok you're trolling

[Ruggery]

There is still a possibility that Belgium will dissolve?

[Dandelion]

We must emulate French methods when Polonizing Western Ukrainians after we take back Lwów area.

Ukrainian is Polonised East Slavic in many ways already.

[Peterski]

ok you're trolling

Actually no, I really believe that.

[Bobby Martnen]

Belgium will be united again when Muslims become the majority in both Flanders and Wallonia.

They need to be expelled from Europe ASAP