mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
So after @horse. kills and @ techniec suggested I made a thread on this. I wrote up a long but by no means exhaustive history of the issue, but feel free to skip it and directly ask questions if you have some. (Or post good "Did not read lol" gifs). I probably didn't touch on various aspects of the issue because it is very complex, but that may come if some of y'all have questions.
Here goes:
Disclaimer: I am a French-speaker (francophone), so my views are obviously biased. However Ill try to be as objective as I can. And my mother was Flemish, my Belgian family is (Im mixed) and I used to spend all of my holidays in Flanders, so I may be closer to Flanders than the average francophone. Also bear in mind that I did not grow in Belgium, I only moved back when I was 22, but got heavily involved in learning about the issue.
So the core issue is that you have two main languages in Belgium: Dutch (North and Brussels) and French (South and Brussels). There is a very small German-speaking community in the East but they arent part of the problem, so they are irrelevant to this thread.
The majority of Belgians speak Dutch (about 60 %). The vast majority of those Dutch-speakers are Flemings, who live in the Flanders region (north of the country). About 40 % of Belgians thus speak French, mostly Walloons who live in Wallonia (south of the country). And then, in the middle, you have Brussels, the capital, which is officially bilingual, but is really 90 % francophone. Problem : its an enclave within Flanders, albeit a separate administrative and political entity (Region).
The root of the issue is that in the beginning of Belgium (1830s), the country decided to be monolingual, and chose French. This somehow made sense at the time: France was quite powerful, French was the international/diplomatic language of choice, and the French language was/is unified, whereas Dutch (and the various dialects of Vlaams, or Flemish) was not. There was ONE French language, whereas there was (and still is) at least 10 Dutch languages/dialects. Dutch in Belgium and in the Netherlands are somewhat different, as well as the dialects in Gent, Antwerp and Oostende, for example, as well as the accents. They sometimes have to put subtitles on TV.
Problem is, a large chunk of the population did not speak French: mostly poor Flemings. So they HAD to learn French in order to move up the ladder (Dutch and Flemish dialects were forbidden at school). And it meant that rich Flemings would speak in French at work, university, government and so on, and Dutch/Flemish was confined at home. Hence the growing sentiment that Dutch (and Flemish culture) was not respected, which at the time was true. The Constitution itself wasnt translated in Dutch until somewhere in the 1960s. But contrary to what Flemish nationalists say today, it wasnt only French-speakers who would impose French: affluent Flemings also chose to speak French, even when they were talking to other Flemings! So there is also a social layer to this issue, between the Dutch-speaking poor Flemings and the French-speaking rich Flemings. But bear in mind that many Walloons did not speak French either, they spoke Walloon, a language somewhere between French, German and Dutch, but closer to French, so the transition was easier and it has all but disappeared now.
At that time, Flanders didnt say much about the issue, even though the resentment was high from the beginning. They didnt, because Flanders, after a golden era during the Middle Ages (one of the richest regions in Europe) Flanders was extremely poor, and many Flemings had to migrate to Wallonia, where the steel and coal industry made it one the richest regions in Europe in the late 1800s-early 1900s. A lot of Walloons today have Flemish last names as a result.
As time passed, people did realize that Belgium could not be a unitary state: language and culture are just different. Flanders wanted more cultural autonomy and more recognition for its language, and Wallonia wanted more economic autonomy. So slowly but surely, a federalist approach emerged. It gained steam, but then WW2 happened: some Flamingants (which would be extremists of the Flemish cause) decided to collaborate with Nazis, as they reckoned that their Germanic cousins would give them more power in a Nazi-dominated Belgium. They wouldve, but they lost. So after the war, it was extremely sensitive for Flemings to be too Pro-Flanders, even though that current, which has some good points for autonomy, existed for a long time before the war.
The problem is that current suddenly wasnt Politically correct, but didnt disappear, since it is based on a legitimate will for more recognition. So it was kind of underground, as major political Flemish parties, while always striving for more and more autonomy did so in a manner that never considered (openly) that Belgium could someday split. But the fact that major Flemish parties were so consensual with French-speakers and with Belgium was starting to pose problem in Flanders, as the region was steadily becoming richer and richer while French-speaking Belgium was becoming poorer and poorer. By the 1970s, Flanders had become richer than Wallonia: Flemings had their revenge. And they didnt want to pay for the Walloons. So the resentment was there, and it was scooped up by the Vlaams Blok (who later became Vlaams Belang), the extreme-right party that once got 33% of votes in Antwerp, the unofficial capital of Flanders. All major Flemish parties felt the shockwaves, but they decided to have what we call a cordon sanitaire: basically, no matter how high the scores the extreme-right would get in Flanders, they would not rule, at whatever level. This is still in effect today.
(An important point: with the various reforms (weve had 6 in less than 200 years), Belgium is a rare two-layered federal state. Meaning we have three regions: Flanders (monolingual Dutch-), Wallonia (monolingual French-) and Brussels (bilingual Dutch and French-). But we also have two communities: the Dutch-speaking one and the French-speaking one. This is important because of Brussels: while it is a third region, it shares its languages with the two others. So there are Dutch-speaking schools in Brussels, as well as French-speaking schools: the systems are vastly different, which is yet another issue (Dutch-speaking schools are vastly better): kids just dont learn the same things. Culture also is split: there is no Belgian TV network: you only have Dutch-speaking ones and French-speaking ones. Same for theater, newspapers and political parties: we dont have Belgian elections. Everyone votes in his/her region, and then they meet at the top. Which is a HUGE issue, because you only have to convince your own community to be elected, without caring about what the other thinks of you. Thats whats been happening these past elections, where the most Flemish would win in Flanders, and since they are more numerous than we are, would automatically become Prime minister. Problem is, you need to form a BELGIAN government, and it has to have as many Dutch-speaking minister as French-speaking ones.)
So after a couple of years, this one guy, Bart de Wever, had what is a genius, yet simple idea: set up a new political party (the N-VA) that would cater to the still-present will for autonomy and ever-growing resentment at French-speakers (considered as leachers in Belgium while it was Flanders who needed and got- help from the South earlier in history), but without the openly racist rhetoric of Vlaams Belang (their racism is more subtle). So all the nationalists/autonomists/racists got what they wanted, but since the party in itself is not extreme-right, its ok. The party started out quietly, but the then-biggest party, CD&V (centre-right, Christians), feeling that it could use some of that fiery rhetoric to be more Flemish than the other parties, organized a cartel. They both won the elections with some quite fiery anti-Francophone rhetoric, and the CD&Vs leader, Yves Leterme (whose father is a francophone!) became Prime Minister in 2007. Problem is, if you want to be a BELGIAN Prime Minister, you have to deal with Francophones. Even more so than economic differences (Flemings are more right-wing, Francophones are more left-wing), it was the communitarian tone that set the francophones off: CD&V only won thanks to the N-VA, and it needed to be harder on French-speakers. Which francophones obviously rejected, and it already took ages to get a government. When CD&V agreed with francophones on a program, because thats the only way you can rule in Belgium, N-VA abandoned ship. It has since become the biggest party in the history in Belgium, joined by people ranging from extreme-right to the left who have one common point: the hope that Flanders will eventually secede and stop paying for the french-speakers. Because it has stayed true to its word (easy to do when you never rule) and consistently insults French-speakers, which is a sure way of getting votes in Flanders. Basically, according to them, everything that is wrong in Belgium and in Flanders is the French-speakers fault (as well as the left and immigrants, but those categories somewhat overlap in Belgium), and everything that works is thanks to the hard-working white) Fleming. They just won the mayorship in Antwerp, and one of the first decisions was to scrap the former motto of the city, which was The City is for all (T stad is van iedereen).
So thats where we stand today, more or less.
Here are some the questions I usually get from foreigners about Belgium.
1. Is it true that Dutch-speakers speak French better than French-speakers speak Dutch? And why?
Yes. First, historically: French just was a more important language in Belgium and in Europe than Dutch, so they got used to learning it, while the opposite is not true. Second: French is STILL more important than Dutch worldwide, theres just a bigger incentive to learn French than Dutch (same reason someone will learn English over Dutch). Third: Dutch is not a very unified language: what we as non-native speakers learn is the Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands, an official version of the language, which every dutch-speaker understands, but doesnt necessarily speak. Dialects are still very important, so a guy from Gent may or may not understand a guy from Hasselt, even though both are Flemings. Finally, remember that there is strong resentment from Flemings towards French-speakers: no matter what level of Dutch you may obtain, you still wont be accepted (some high profile members of N-VA have stated that francophones trying to speak Dutch are raping the language )
2. Is the resentment from Flemings towards French-speakers justified?
Somewhat, yes. It is true that Flemings culture was somewhat oppressed, since their language was not recognized as an official language in Belgium, with consequences on the culture and self-esteem. But Flemings were not necessarily discriminated against if they spoke French for example, it was more of a social/educational divide than a ethnic one. Prime Ministers, for example, have almost always been Flemings who happened to speak perfect French. And the situation has now drastically changed: Flemings are more numerous, richer, have more high-ranking official in every single administration and in the army, and so on the only thing francophones dominate is the image that people sometimes have of Belgium as being a French-speaking country, mostly because Brussels is predominantly French-speaking and that we benefit from the French cultural market. Yet, Flemings perceive French-speakers as arrogant and as imposing themselves to Flemings, while they havent had the means to do so for at least 20 years. But presenting themselves as victims is a great way to justify their animosity.
3. If its so complicated, why dont you guys just split up?
Because its even more complicated to split up. Brussels, is in the center of the country, but totally surrounded by Flanders. However, it is mostly (90%) French-speaking. Neither Flanders nor Wallonia want to lose Brussels, so thats that. Flanders doesnt even recognize it as being a third region, because it would mean that you have two mostly French-speaking regions versus one Dutch-speaking one. Brussels used to be a Dutch-speaking city, but then most people started speaking French, and immigrants generally choose to learn French (when they actually learn a local language a lot dont mind-). So Flemings resent having lost Brussels to French-speakers. Then you would have to split everything, especially the debt, and since Flanders is the one looking for secession, it would pay a hefty price. Plus it would be seen as the bad guy, the richer region that doesnt want to help the poorer one (which is exactly what it is). Flanders has the ideal situation now: benefits of a vast autonomy without the problems a sovereign state has. Whatever goes wrong: French-speakers fault. They are older, so they dont want to split the retirement fund. If they split the country, they lose Brussels, where they make most of their money (half of the jobs in Brussels are taken by people living in Flanders, because they speak more languages and because of discrimination against French-speakers. But in Belgium, you pay your taxes where you live, not where you work, so a LOT of tax money escapes from Brussels to Flanders, making the former poorer and the latter richer). More and more French-speakers are considering a secession themselves, because its only so long that you can bear being called lazy, unemployed, addicted to federal money not intellectually capable of learning Dutch (all quotes from Flemish political leaders).
4. Doesnt this go against what the EU is trying to do?
Yes, as the EU is striving for more togetherness and solidarity, but also no.
The EUs unofficial goal is to become more important than member states, thats why the Commission and the Council are always fighting. So the Commission started directly helping regions, and also promotes the establishment of greater regions that go beyond national borders for increased cooperation. Those are means to circumvent member states power: more power to the regions means less power for the state. Its not a coincidence that separatist/regionalist movements, while always present, have become more and more prominent in Flanders, Catalunya, Wales, Basque country, north of Italy and so on these past years.
Here goes:
Disclaimer: I am a French-speaker (francophone), so my views are obviously biased. However Ill try to be as objective as I can. And my mother was Flemish, my Belgian family is (Im mixed) and I used to spend all of my holidays in Flanders, so I may be closer to Flanders than the average francophone. Also bear in mind that I did not grow in Belgium, I only moved back when I was 22, but got heavily involved in learning about the issue.
So the core issue is that you have two main languages in Belgium: Dutch (North and Brussels) and French (South and Brussels). There is a very small German-speaking community in the East but they arent part of the problem, so they are irrelevant to this thread.
The majority of Belgians speak Dutch (about 60 %). The vast majority of those Dutch-speakers are Flemings, who live in the Flanders region (north of the country). About 40 % of Belgians thus speak French, mostly Walloons who live in Wallonia (south of the country). And then, in the middle, you have Brussels, the capital, which is officially bilingual, but is really 90 % francophone. Problem : its an enclave within Flanders, albeit a separate administrative and political entity (Region).
The root of the issue is that in the beginning of Belgium (1830s), the country decided to be monolingual, and chose French. This somehow made sense at the time: France was quite powerful, French was the international/diplomatic language of choice, and the French language was/is unified, whereas Dutch (and the various dialects of Vlaams, or Flemish) was not. There was ONE French language, whereas there was (and still is) at least 10 Dutch languages/dialects. Dutch in Belgium and in the Netherlands are somewhat different, as well as the dialects in Gent, Antwerp and Oostende, for example, as well as the accents. They sometimes have to put subtitles on TV.
Problem is, a large chunk of the population did not speak French: mostly poor Flemings. So they HAD to learn French in order to move up the ladder (Dutch and Flemish dialects were forbidden at school). And it meant that rich Flemings would speak in French at work, university, government and so on, and Dutch/Flemish was confined at home. Hence the growing sentiment that Dutch (and Flemish culture) was not respected, which at the time was true. The Constitution itself wasnt translated in Dutch until somewhere in the 1960s. But contrary to what Flemish nationalists say today, it wasnt only French-speakers who would impose French: affluent Flemings also chose to speak French, even when they were talking to other Flemings! So there is also a social layer to this issue, between the Dutch-speaking poor Flemings and the French-speaking rich Flemings. But bear in mind that many Walloons did not speak French either, they spoke Walloon, a language somewhere between French, German and Dutch, but closer to French, so the transition was easier and it has all but disappeared now.
At that time, Flanders didnt say much about the issue, even though the resentment was high from the beginning. They didnt, because Flanders, after a golden era during the Middle Ages (one of the richest regions in Europe) Flanders was extremely poor, and many Flemings had to migrate to Wallonia, where the steel and coal industry made it one the richest regions in Europe in the late 1800s-early 1900s. A lot of Walloons today have Flemish last names as a result.
As time passed, people did realize that Belgium could not be a unitary state: language and culture are just different. Flanders wanted more cultural autonomy and more recognition for its language, and Wallonia wanted more economic autonomy. So slowly but surely, a federalist approach emerged. It gained steam, but then WW2 happened: some Flamingants (which would be extremists of the Flemish cause) decided to collaborate with Nazis, as they reckoned that their Germanic cousins would give them more power in a Nazi-dominated Belgium. They wouldve, but they lost. So after the war, it was extremely sensitive for Flemings to be too Pro-Flanders, even though that current, which has some good points for autonomy, existed for a long time before the war.
The problem is that current suddenly wasnt Politically correct, but didnt disappear, since it is based on a legitimate will for more recognition. So it was kind of underground, as major political Flemish parties, while always striving for more and more autonomy did so in a manner that never considered (openly) that Belgium could someday split. But the fact that major Flemish parties were so consensual with French-speakers and with Belgium was starting to pose problem in Flanders, as the region was steadily becoming richer and richer while French-speaking Belgium was becoming poorer and poorer. By the 1970s, Flanders had become richer than Wallonia: Flemings had their revenge. And they didnt want to pay for the Walloons. So the resentment was there, and it was scooped up by the Vlaams Blok (who later became Vlaams Belang), the extreme-right party that once got 33% of votes in Antwerp, the unofficial capital of Flanders. All major Flemish parties felt the shockwaves, but they decided to have what we call a cordon sanitaire: basically, no matter how high the scores the extreme-right would get in Flanders, they would not rule, at whatever level. This is still in effect today.
(An important point: with the various reforms (weve had 6 in less than 200 years), Belgium is a rare two-layered federal state. Meaning we have three regions: Flanders (monolingual Dutch-), Wallonia (monolingual French-) and Brussels (bilingual Dutch and French-). But we also have two communities: the Dutch-speaking one and the French-speaking one. This is important because of Brussels: while it is a third region, it shares its languages with the two others. So there are Dutch-speaking schools in Brussels, as well as French-speaking schools: the systems are vastly different, which is yet another issue (Dutch-speaking schools are vastly better): kids just dont learn the same things. Culture also is split: there is no Belgian TV network: you only have Dutch-speaking ones and French-speaking ones. Same for theater, newspapers and political parties: we dont have Belgian elections. Everyone votes in his/her region, and then they meet at the top. Which is a HUGE issue, because you only have to convince your own community to be elected, without caring about what the other thinks of you. Thats whats been happening these past elections, where the most Flemish would win in Flanders, and since they are more numerous than we are, would automatically become Prime minister. Problem is, you need to form a BELGIAN government, and it has to have as many Dutch-speaking minister as French-speaking ones.)
So after a couple of years, this one guy, Bart de Wever, had what is a genius, yet simple idea: set up a new political party (the N-VA) that would cater to the still-present will for autonomy and ever-growing resentment at French-speakers (considered as leachers in Belgium while it was Flanders who needed and got- help from the South earlier in history), but without the openly racist rhetoric of Vlaams Belang (their racism is more subtle). So all the nationalists/autonomists/racists got what they wanted, but since the party in itself is not extreme-right, its ok. The party started out quietly, but the then-biggest party, CD&V (centre-right, Christians), feeling that it could use some of that fiery rhetoric to be more Flemish than the other parties, organized a cartel. They both won the elections with some quite fiery anti-Francophone rhetoric, and the CD&Vs leader, Yves Leterme (whose father is a francophone!) became Prime Minister in 2007. Problem is, if you want to be a BELGIAN Prime Minister, you have to deal with Francophones. Even more so than economic differences (Flemings are more right-wing, Francophones are more left-wing), it was the communitarian tone that set the francophones off: CD&V only won thanks to the N-VA, and it needed to be harder on French-speakers. Which francophones obviously rejected, and it already took ages to get a government. When CD&V agreed with francophones on a program, because thats the only way you can rule in Belgium, N-VA abandoned ship. It has since become the biggest party in the history in Belgium, joined by people ranging from extreme-right to the left who have one common point: the hope that Flanders will eventually secede and stop paying for the french-speakers. Because it has stayed true to its word (easy to do when you never rule) and consistently insults French-speakers, which is a sure way of getting votes in Flanders. Basically, according to them, everything that is wrong in Belgium and in Flanders is the French-speakers fault (as well as the left and immigrants, but those categories somewhat overlap in Belgium), and everything that works is thanks to the hard-working white) Fleming. They just won the mayorship in Antwerp, and one of the first decisions was to scrap the former motto of the city, which was The City is for all (T stad is van iedereen).
So thats where we stand today, more or less.
Here are some the questions I usually get from foreigners about Belgium.
1. Is it true that Dutch-speakers speak French better than French-speakers speak Dutch? And why?
Yes. First, historically: French just was a more important language in Belgium and in Europe than Dutch, so they got used to learning it, while the opposite is not true. Second: French is STILL more important than Dutch worldwide, theres just a bigger incentive to learn French than Dutch (same reason someone will learn English over Dutch). Third: Dutch is not a very unified language: what we as non-native speakers learn is the Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands, an official version of the language, which every dutch-speaker understands, but doesnt necessarily speak. Dialects are still very important, so a guy from Gent may or may not understand a guy from Hasselt, even though both are Flemings. Finally, remember that there is strong resentment from Flemings towards French-speakers: no matter what level of Dutch you may obtain, you still wont be accepted (some high profile members of N-VA have stated that francophones trying to speak Dutch are raping the language )
2. Is the resentment from Flemings towards French-speakers justified?
Somewhat, yes. It is true that Flemings culture was somewhat oppressed, since their language was not recognized as an official language in Belgium, with consequences on the culture and self-esteem. But Flemings were not necessarily discriminated against if they spoke French for example, it was more of a social/educational divide than a ethnic one. Prime Ministers, for example, have almost always been Flemings who happened to speak perfect French. And the situation has now drastically changed: Flemings are more numerous, richer, have more high-ranking official in every single administration and in the army, and so on the only thing francophones dominate is the image that people sometimes have of Belgium as being a French-speaking country, mostly because Brussels is predominantly French-speaking and that we benefit from the French cultural market. Yet, Flemings perceive French-speakers as arrogant and as imposing themselves to Flemings, while they havent had the means to do so for at least 20 years. But presenting themselves as victims is a great way to justify their animosity.
3. If its so complicated, why dont you guys just split up?
Because its even more complicated to split up. Brussels, is in the center of the country, but totally surrounded by Flanders. However, it is mostly (90%) French-speaking. Neither Flanders nor Wallonia want to lose Brussels, so thats that. Flanders doesnt even recognize it as being a third region, because it would mean that you have two mostly French-speaking regions versus one Dutch-speaking one. Brussels used to be a Dutch-speaking city, but then most people started speaking French, and immigrants generally choose to learn French (when they actually learn a local language a lot dont mind-). So Flemings resent having lost Brussels to French-speakers. Then you would have to split everything, especially the debt, and since Flanders is the one looking for secession, it would pay a hefty price. Plus it would be seen as the bad guy, the richer region that doesnt want to help the poorer one (which is exactly what it is). Flanders has the ideal situation now: benefits of a vast autonomy without the problems a sovereign state has. Whatever goes wrong: French-speakers fault. They are older, so they dont want to split the retirement fund. If they split the country, they lose Brussels, where they make most of their money (half of the jobs in Brussels are taken by people living in Flanders, because they speak more languages and because of discrimination against French-speakers. But in Belgium, you pay your taxes where you live, not where you work, so a LOT of tax money escapes from Brussels to Flanders, making the former poorer and the latter richer). More and more French-speakers are considering a secession themselves, because its only so long that you can bear being called lazy, unemployed, addicted to federal money not intellectually capable of learning Dutch (all quotes from Flemish political leaders).
4. Doesnt this go against what the EU is trying to do?
Yes, as the EU is striving for more togetherness and solidarity, but also no.
The EUs unofficial goal is to become more important than member states, thats why the Commission and the Council are always fighting. So the Commission started directly helping regions, and also promotes the establishment of greater regions that go beyond national borders for increased cooperation. Those are means to circumvent member states power: more power to the regions means less power for the state. Its not a coincidence that separatist/regionalist movements, while always present, have become more and more prominent in Flanders, Catalunya, Wales, Basque country, north of Italy and so on these past years.
Last edited by a moderator:
can't tell em apart) different?
). So Flemings speak better english, meaning they have better access to (mostly) American cultural products/info, meaning they are influenced by it, whereas French-speakers are more influenced by France. So if you know anything about cultural differences between the US and France, you can also add that to this discussion! Older Flemings, on the other hand, have much more in common with (young and old) French-speakers: a lot are still kind of left-wing, "bons vivants" (take it easy-party types). Historically, ALL Belgians were considered "looser", "funnier", "easier-going" than French people and Dutch people, but Flemings have kind of changes in the past 30 years. My own uncles and aunts, all Flemings, say they noticed it and don't recognize their own Flanders. 
Can't respect a eurosceptic who's sitting at the EU parliament. 
. In many places, there are tacict agreements between real estate and politicians in order to keep towns as "flemish" as possible: if you don't speak dutch, you'll probably not get the house. Even more absurd: the regional bus-line (De Lijn) cannot use any other language than Dutch for any purpose, including advertisement, because it is a public service. Resulty: they lose millions of euros annualy because they can't even put an advertisement for "Skyfall" or "The Hobbit" on their buses: they would've to translate those movie titles in dutch first. 
And in the end, strangely enough, there still is some kind of "tough love" between both language groups, Flemings go to the mountain in the Ardennes (Wallonia) and enjoy the food there, French-speakers go the coast (Flanders) and enjoy visiting the nice towns of the North. And more often than not, both groups laugh about their differences around one thing that we'll always have in common: beer 