Why is Belgium so divided?

[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/thierryde...-van-frankrijk

[Dandelion]

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

https://www.slideshare.net/thierryde...-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.

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.

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.



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/Br...63!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.