Flemish flamenco
Thanks for all your interesting comments about Belgium. Apologies for calling one of the colours in the Belgian flag 鈥済old鈥 rather than 鈥測ellow鈥: it is my come-uppance for being pedantic. In heraldry there is no such thing as 鈥測ellow鈥 and the flag derives from the arms of Brabant which are: Sable, a lion rampant or, armed and langued gules (a gold lion on a black background with a red tongue).
Michael makes an interesting point, that my views are very Brussels-centric. Well, it鈥檚 true I do live in the city and my perceptions are coloured by my experiences. But in my limited experience, the Flemish outside Brussels are not that much more sensitive about their language. Yes, we all know stories of post offices and town halls where the perfect English speaker requires you to bring a translator but I don鈥檛 find that in the shops in those towns.
Perhaps both the French and Dutch speakers deserve more understanding. We British are in a privileged position, speaking what is rapidly become the world鈥檚 lingua franca. It鈥檚 largely an accident of history, and down to America. I think we would be immensely prickly if we felt our language was under attack.
Doing a regular but random trawl of euro blogs I was tickled by and flag. I suggested the Flemish had more in common with the Anglo-Saxons than with the French. says they would get on better with the English than the Scots do.
A propos of not much, I was struck by something I read this weekend about flamboyant Flems. The book suggested that the Flemish-born Carlos I of Spain introduced a lot of his fellow countrymen to the Spanish court, where they were known for their colourful, extravagant dress.
Derivations of 鈥淔lemish鈥 supposedly came to have this meaning, and that is where 鈥flamenco鈥 comes from. Can this possibly be true? I鈥檓 somewhat doubtful (鈥渇lamboyant鈥 is from 鈥渇laming鈥, not 鈥淔lemish鈥). But if even half-true, it suggests that national stereotypes can rather change over the centuries.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
I tried to comment on the earlier stream about divided Belgium on a couple of points - one related to Einstein (see post no 73). He and many other Jews wanted to get as far away as he could from persecution prevalent in Central Europe. For example there were pogroms in Poland in the Thirties (and one in Kielce in 1945 or 1946).
Also, I don't think anyone mentioned Henrik Conscience who in the mid 19C tried to bring some sort of standardisation to the various types of Flemish - West Vlaams, Oost Vlaams, etc.
I enjoyed the discussion, but found there were too many people with deeply entrenched positions.
Best wishes.
You tripped a bit in your heraldry... It's not "gules" but "gueules"
"Keiser Karel", as Charles Quint is known in Flemish, was multiingual but does not seem to have spoken Flemish, despite being born in Ghent. He is reported to have said "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to ladies, Frenmch to men and German to my horses".
The Dutch usually call the Belgians "burgundians" because of their expansive lifestyle. But burgundian historically applies more to Brabant and the Walloon provinces which had the German emperor as their sovereign than to the Flemings who were part of France. Burgundy wine is supposed to mature best in the Meuse valley and the best cellars are reported to be in Maestricht (furthere downstream, you hit the Calvinist border - yes, another border ! - where wine is theoretically shunned Closer to the sea, of course, it is the claret-bordeaux that reigns supreme. Just check the wine lists in restaurants
Dear Mark,
Do your lords and masters at the Beeb know that you read The Huntsman? (A quiet corner of the libertarian right'). Do take care: exposure to opinions outside the liberal-left media-mafia mainstream could jeopardise your position and pension ;-)
Mark may believe that Flemish people don't have great sensitivities in the area of language; he is, I think, mistaken. A Flemish friend, whose French is perfect, once refused point blank to interpret in French at an Academic conference.
Being Flemish and living in the US, I agree that the Flemish sensitivity about our language has the appearance of being somewhat ridiculous. Let me put that in context. Most Flemings speak at least 2 languages, and a lot of them speak 3 or more. In conversation with non-Dutch speakers, Flemings will almost alway switch to the other's language to the best of their ability. I challenge you to find that in Wallonia or France.
Most Flemings will also admit that Dutch is a small language (6 million in Flanders and 16 million in Holland). But then again, there are many even smaller languages (e.g. Finnish) and nobody fusses about that.
The language issue is both historical and social. Historically, the Flemish have been oppressed for very long by the French speakers: all education was French, as was literature, law enforcement, the courts, politics, business, ... The Dutch language did not exist officially in Flanders until not too long ago. The Dutch never had that problem.
Today we have a unique problem of the facility-communities around Brussels. Flemish towns by origin, were 'invaded' by French speakers for the last couple of decades. In order to make the transition easier, the Flemish government allowed special 'facilities', e.g. correspondence from the Flemish government in French, French schools subsidized by Flemish school budgets, ... The understanding was (according to the Flemish) that these facilities were temporary until people assimilated and acquired enough Dutch language skills to integrate with the Flemish population (and become Flemings themselves). That has never happened. A lot of them still don't speak Dutch (after having lived there for 20 years). These people are also very affluent and have driven up the real estate prices dramatically, to the point that children of Flemish natives can no longer afford to live in their own town. They all vote for Wallonian parties (FDF, PRL, PS). No Flemish party has voters in Wallonia, but these towns are all governed by Wallonian parties.
Another influence is that of health care. Flemish living in or around Brussels, need to go to hospitals in Brussels for their health care. Very few hospitals in Brussels have staff that can speak Dutch. All Flemish governed hospitals in Brussels have bilingual staff. The French governed hospitals never required bilingual skills. Very funny when you are run over by a car close to your home, brought into hospital half-dead and nobody understands a word you are saying. There are also anecdotes of perfectly sane Flemish elders in Brussels convalescence homes run by French speakers that dismissed the elders as Alzheimer patients because they don't understand them.
During my military service, because of the cutbacks both French and Flemish recruits were trained together, the Flemish staff repeated all instructions in both languages, but not the French speaking staff. "Et pour les Flamands la mem chose" was still very prevalent in the military in 1993.
I can go on about that, but I hope you got the picture.
@john somer
Your article is full of mistakes. Just to mention a few:
1. It's not "Keiser Karel" but "Keizer Karel"
2. Flemish is not a language
3. Flanders was also a part of Burgundy
4. It's not "Maestricht" but "Maastricht"
5. Maastricht is not a calvinist city
The story about the linguistical skills of Charles V is of course a myth. There are a lot of versions. In one of them, the emperor speaks German to his dog.
Alfons, Antwerp
Mark
Thank you for being tickled!
I have been astonished at how much interest this article and a follow up have produced which suggests that I may have hit a few raw nerves.
A propos of 3 above (Max Sceptic), I will not let on if you don't!
Even if not to your taste completely, I hope you will keep passing by.
Michael H.
Mark Mardell wrote: "(鈥渇lamboyant鈥 is from 鈥渇laming鈥, not 鈥淔lemish鈥)."
... Is niet Vlams Flemish?
"Vlamenco!" the flaming Dutch might shout....
Interesting that kempenaar_in_ca (* 5) writes about the Walloons in the same terms as one normally hears about foreigners from more exotic parts of the world...... It also make me think of the Welsh facing the invasion of the English....
..... Perhaps racism would decrease if people took these problems (economic, cultural and lingusitic interactions) seriously and dealt with them in a humane and honest way -without getting hysterical and without placing a taboo on the subject. I guess this explains why Flamboyant and Bourgondistic (Catholic/Gay) Pim Fortuiyn was so popular in Holland (apparently also with some immigrants too). However, the 91热爆 insisted (probably in support of traditional Dutch politicians) on refering to him as an extreme right-wing politician -without taking into account the conditions created by the left-right coalition in government at the time..... a time when spin was king -and a bit of plain speaking was like a breath of fresh spring air. I remember American black panther activists, in the 1960's, saying they'd rather deal with a racist than a white liberal. Much later, in Holland, I understood why. If it is openely discussed one can deal with it -but hidden away it can only fester in silence before errupting -as it did with the death of Theo van Gogh.
I was very much intrigued by the part where you mentioned how "we who speak English" would feel prickly if we felt our language was under attack in a ways of reminding us to step into the shoes of the French and the Dutch.
I understand entirely what you were saying and I thought about it and remembered that English, as we speak it today, is in fact a "Root Language", ouie? It's made up of French and Dutch and Danish and this and that and even more recently, Aborigine, Red Indian, Maori, East Indian, West Indian, this, that and everything else.
In Spanish, the Flemish language is "Flamenco" - so I think there must be a connection
"Very funny when you are run over...half-dead and no-one understands what you are saying."
I wonder why??
By the way, my limited knowlege of Dutch tells me that 'Vlam' (Vlams is Flemish) means 'flame', so there could be more of a link than suspected (theoretically).
D.
Actually, the Flemish are still "flamencos" in Spanish, a fact that occasionally leads to funny misunderstandings.
Dear Kempenaar_in_ca, I am Walloon living in the UK and got your picture okay. Now, please, allow me to give mine.
First, I am tired of hearing the lies of Flemish about how lazy and stupid Walloons are. This is simply pure invention, propaganda of Flemish politician hungry for power and manipulating gullible people. To answer to your challenge, I speak 4 languages fluently: French, being my mother tongue, Flemish (contrarily to what the Flemish want the rest of us to believe, I was taught at a non private school, which also taught English, Spanish and German, from the age of 12), English and Italian. Most of my Belgian friends also speak at least 2 languages.
Second, according to your History, Flemish have been oppressed by French speakers. Well, the place that eventually became Belgium, has been under several rules: Spanish, French and Dutch. And I guess the 鈥渙ppressed鈥 varied according to whoever was ruling at the time. In my History book, the last ruler was Dutch. Both Flemish and Walloons gained their independency together and French emerged as the newly-founded state main language. No French-speaking 鈥渋nvaded鈥 (you must have lived in the USA for too long鈥) Flemish towns. Just as Gibraltarians or Falklanders want to be british ,some Belgians want to speak French. I can鈥檛 see any problem. You describe your Walloon 鈥渋nvaders鈥 as 鈥渁ffluent鈥. Maybe that鈥檚 where the real problem is. Struggling middle-class Flemish need a scapegoat.
Now, hospitals in Brussels. Again, I have heard so many ridiculous stories about Flemish dying in French-speaking hospitals because no one could understand them. I though all Flemish spoke French anyway? Maybe they refuse to? My turn to give you an anecdote. The mother of a Spanish friend of mine had to be taken to hospital in Antwerp. To be helpful, she told the nurse she could speak French a bit. The nurse replied she鈥檇 rather learn Spanish (I though she already could?!) than speak French to her. Another anecdote? A very good friend of mine studying medicine in Brussels was living in Woluwe (strongly Flemish). The local bakery would not serve him for being Walloon and the place where him and other French-speaking students lived was regularly vandalised. I experienced it personally too. My uncle married a Flemish woman and moved to St Niklaas near Antwerp. He was completely integrated and spoke the local dialect perfectly. Apart from his wife and daughter, we were never made to feel welcome by his son-in-law and other members of the family when visiting (we were always the ones to go, they never came down). Less anecdotal, more factual: remember the 鈥淲aalen buiten鈥 of 68? The then bilingual university of Leuven (in Flanders) denied the French-speaking students access to lectures/libraries. Walloons were eventually kicked out of Leuven university and had to build their own in Louvain-La-Neuve. Discrimination? Apartheid? In fact, education and health apartheid is quite openly part of the manifesto of the Vlaams Belang, an independentist party who wants the expulsion of foreigners up to the third generation. Incidentally, in the news yesterday, I heard of a Flemish teenager who killed a 2 year old and a foreign woman. His words: 鈥淚 want to kill as many foreigners as possible to comply with the Vlaams Belang鈥檚 ideology鈥. Welcome to Flanders!
Finally, I unfortunately also did my military service, my friend, in 1992-3 as well. Maybe we have met already! I was in Ghent and my experience is that the platoons were split in Flemish- and French-speaking. Sadly, no mixing, apart from in the pubs in the evenings! There. You have my picture. I know Belgians can and most of the Flemish and Walloons want to live together. But I sometimes feel a minority of Flemish like to depict themselves as martyrs and victims and have invented the image of the bad Walloon for their propaganda. Maybe it鈥檚 because they like to hate someone. Maybe once they get their independence, they will hate their neighbours. Maybe they鈥檒l then declare their own houses independent鈥. J. Even though I didn鈥檛 think much of his biased initial article, I thank Mark Mardell for the debate opportunity.
Having lived in Belgium myself for the past 13 years, married to a Flemish wife and bringing up our children to be comfortable in either English or Dutch-speaking environments, I can say with a high degree of confidence that correspondant number 6 is correct on two counts. Firstly that "a lot of them (the French-speakers resident in the so-called Flemish communities around Brussels) still don't speak Dutch", and secondly that "in conversation with non-Dutch speakers, Flemings will almost alway[s] switch to the other's language...". Anyone who has learned to speak a foreign language will know that it is absolutely imperative to have the opportunity to practice speaking that language. On a daily basis I see young French-speakers attempt to start conversations in perfectly acceptable Dutch, only to be answered in (often very mediocre) French. On a daily basis I also see the older French speakers who've simply given up trying.
For hundreds of years the educated Flemish have preferred to communicate in whatever the international language happened to be at the time (Latin or French) rather than to use their own language. After finally gaining the freedom to use their own language at the end of the 1960's, the educated Flemish (and obviously nowadays practically everyone is educated) still prefer to communicate in the "international language" - which currently happens to be English. A quick listen to any Flemish radio station will confirm this, where most adverts are read in English with a heavy Flemish accent.
There are very many wonderful people who make up the population of Flanders, but there are also many arrogant ones. In the end I don't think it really matters about "who gets Brussels" and whether an independent Flanders would be allowed to remain a part of the European Union; the two language groups would simply be much, much happier apart. But for goodness sake fix the boundary democratically this time by allowing each commune to vote on whether it wants to be governed in French or Dutch. Otherwise the future will hold the same problems in store as have been created in the past.
Apropos your rhetorical query regarding the etymology of the word "flamenco". I found the following definition in the excellent (and free) online etymological dictionary (www.etymonline.com).
Flamenco
1896, from Sp. flamenco, first used of Gypsy dancing in Andalusia. The word means "Fleming, native of Flanders" (Du. Vlaming) and also "flamingo." Speculation are varied and colorful about the connection between the bird, the people, and the gypsy dance of Andalusia. Spain ruled Flanders for many years, and King Carlos I brought with him to Madrid an entire Flemish court. One etymology suggests the dance was so called from the bright costumes and energetic movements, which the Sp. associated with Flanders; another is that Spaniards, especially Andalusians, like to name things by their opposites, and since the Flemish were tall and blond and the gypsies short and dark, the gypsies were called "Flemish;" others hold that flamenco was the general Sp. word for all foreigners, gypsies included; or that Flemish noblemen, bored with court life, took to partying with the gypsies.
Dear kempenaar_in_ca, I am also Walloon, and just like Vincent, I am willing to answer your challenge: I do speak French (my native language), as well as English, Dutch, German, Spanish, and Danish (I currently live in Denmark). And please, leave our French neighbours out of this debate! Thanks Mark Mardell for bringing up this topic, by the way, and enjoy your stay in Belgium! Alex, Copenhagen.
Interesting column. As a Castilian, I wanted to try to answer your last point regarding the term 'flamenco' por Flemish people. There are several theories, none really standing apart:
1) As you suggest, it comes from the Flemish 'flaming'.
2) I understand your doubts, but in Castile it is well known the issue of Flemish courtisans coming with Charles the Vth (or the Ist in Spain). It is so important that it actually explains why nobody outside of Spain is familiar with Castile, when it is the kingdom that financed and explored the Americas (Spain did exist, but the old kingdoms kept their own rules and independence in most things, including taxes, so it was some sort of federation). The fact is that partially because of the coming of the Flemish court, the Commoners (populace, independent movement of old free-men) rioted in Castile raised against the king. They were swept off in Villalar by the king forces and his noble Castilian allies. This meant the disappearance of Castile and its independent 'villas' system as an independent entity. That's why today people relate Spain to Castile. Anyway, because of this issue, Flemish people were called like the flamingos (birds) because of their reddish skin.
3) Another: During the Flemish wars, the term acquired a negative meaning, and was associated to rebel people and miserable living (because of the rainy climate), and was associated to the gypsies and later on to their music.
4) Another one assumes the presence of Flemish singers that came with Charles the 1st (or the Vth). From here it went to refer to Andalucian and Gypsy singers.
5) Another one assumes that the music was called like that because of the many Gypsies fighting in the Flemish wars.
As you can see they are all very week, but at least now you have a compendium to work with. The only thing for sure is my mention about the Commoners revolt and the elimination of Castile as a self-identity entity.
It's nice to see people again using history to prove their points, and getting it all wrong.
When I see somebody trying to use the anti-Francophone revolt at the University of Leuven as an example of Flemish people being xenophobic, it sort of gets me riled up. It's a complex history, and just summing it up in a few lines and then use it to suggest you actually understand what you are talking about is intellectually lazy and exactly why our society is devolving into a society of opinions where everybody screams and nobody listens.
Maybe some of you would do well to actually read a book every once and a while. Might I also add that the Walloons were the ones that WANTED Flanders & Wallonia to have only ONE language, either French or Flemish. The Flemish parties at time asked for it to be made bilingual.
For the record, I am against a seperation, and were Flanders to break off, I would not want citizenship.
Congratulations for your well-researched articles on the Belgian situation and its historic background.
Having also read many interesting comments, I wish to add some rarely mentioned facts.
The population of Belgium is roughly 60% Flemish ( conservative/catholic) and 40% Walloon (Socialist).
Isn't it a clear symptom of loyalty to this country's former unity that this Flemish majority supported for so long a royal family that is francofone? Our present queen is incapable of pronouncing one spontaneous sentence in Flemish.
The present support of the Wallons for royalty is solely based on their intrest in keeping the country unified so that the Flemish financing of the corrupt (socialist)
regime in Wallonia continues.
It should be noted that the brutal repression of all expresssions of Flemish revival since 1831 can be attributed also to the then powerful Catholic church.Cardinal Marcier in particular was vehement in his loathing of all things Flemish.Undoubtedly this can be
attributed to fear of Protestant influence through the Dutch.
The first Flemish university in this country was started under German occupation in 1917.Not by a francofobe government !
Again : during WWII, the eradication of godless Bolshevism was actively encouraged from the pulpit.Naive Flemish catholics were sent to the Russian front with the blessing of the church.
The few that survived were persecuted during postwar brutal repression as collaborators with the enemy without any help whatsoever from that church which - at this same time - was actively helping (through Bavarian and Tyrolean convents) in the escape of former SS (Odessa) to Genua and hence to S-America.
Might this have been part of the deal between the nazis and the Vatican : silence over elimination of Jews against reintroduction of the church in Russia ???
Interesting questions.
Sorry for the length.Complicated stories require some explanation.
Christian
I was very happy to see Mark Mardell (and Radio 4鈥檚 The World This Weekend a couple of months ago) devote some time to the 鈥楤elgian question鈥, if you like, as it is a much misunderstood issue, with many sides and much history behind it. I was also entirely unsurprised to find so many deeply entrenched positions and misconceptions, wilful or otherwise. The comments to this follow-up yet again highlight this. Anecdotal evidence and urban legends abound, whether based in reality or not, and people very easily fall into the trap of tribal thinking, often before they know it鈥檚 happened, and hackles rise immediately. This is when cliches like 鈥榓ll Walloons are lazy dole scroungers鈥 come out, followed very closely by their counterpart 鈥榓ll Flemings are crypto-fascist racists鈥. Having studied the language question in Belgian history for a fair few years (and being Belgian myself), I think a number of issues lie at the root of many of themse misunderstandings. First of all, although it is clearly an exaggeration to say that Flemish towns were 鈥榠nvaded鈥 by Walloons, to pretend that there never was a language issue is equally ridiculous (it鈥檚 called de taalstrijd, after all). French did indeed enjoy a privileged status until the major language laws were passed in the 1930鈥檚, and there is no doubt that there was a certain reluctance to enact these language laws in certain quarters of francophone Belgium into the fifties and sixties. But the one thing which has done more to confuse matters than anything else is the different legal conception of language and its speakers. In the dutch-speaking Belgian discourse, language is most frequently conceived of in terms of ius soli, or law of the land, which defines the language that should be spoken by an individual according to where they are (Dutch on Flemish territory, French on Wallonian territory, either in Brussels and the nineteen communities). In the francophone Belgian discourse, people often also use the concept of ius personae, in which the individual determines which language they speak regardless of where they are. In this respect, it was not unusual to find the attitude that a French speaker should have the right to speak French on 鈥楧utch-speaking鈥 territory 鈥 hence the facilities entrenched in the constitution, which were and are seen as temporary by the Flemish and permanent by francophones 鈥 whereas the reverse is hardly ever true. This has historical reasons: before 1919, Flanders was officially bilingual (French and Dutch), whereas Wallonia has always been monolingual (French only). This explains, for instance, why some francophone negotiators demand that any concession on the split of the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde should be followed by an extension of Brussels, and hence a shift of the language border which was established in 1970 (ius personae here overrides the ius soli). It also explains why this idea is so unacceptable to Flemish negotiators, to whom the notion of ius soli 鈥 whether consciously or not 鈥 is the only point of reference. Most telling of all is the fact that neither side of the debate seems to be able to understand how utterly unacceptable these demands appear to the others, since they do not speak the same language in more ways than one. And as the previous poster points out, the separation of Leuven can be seen in very similar terms.
A lack of communication as well as the failure to agree on common terms for the debate at different stages throughout Belgian history and from both sides have taken us to the state we are in now, and I鈥檓 afraid that unless the new federal Belgians and (even more so) their politicians finally agree to be honest with themselves and each other and start genuinely understanding each other鈥檚 languages, historically, legally and linguistically, the end of the taalstrijd is still a long way off. Whether they will ever agree to do so is anybody鈥檚 guess鈥
I have to say that comments 15 and 17 are inaccurate.
Comment 15 says: "Spain ruled Flanders for many years". That is not true. The King of Flanders happened to be King of Castille as well but no kingdom was ruled by the other. Simply, Charles ruled both and used their resources jointly. Flanders was never part of Spain but a kindomg ruled by the same king that ruled Spain. This comes from dynastic rights, not from conquest. The presence of Spanish soldiers in Flanders was due to the necessities of Charles to deploy troops to confront the rebellion that took place. They could have equally come from Germany or Italy (as they did in great numbers later on).
Comment 17 says: "[...]Castile, when it is the kingdom that financed and explored the Americas" Again, this is the common belief but not the fact. The finance came from traders and bankers from Genoa and Germany. Castile never had the resources for such an enterprise so Charles took the money from where he could find it. The exploration of the Americas owes as much to China, the American Indians and Portugal as to Spain. Non-Castillians who participated in the colonization and exploration (never a conquest regardless of what Cort茅s and Pizarro suggested) of America outnumber those who were born in Castille.
"1421, The Year China Discovered The World" and Henry Kamen's excellent "The Spanish Road To Empire" are very good for these issues.
U made a very nice reply, kempenaar.
couldnt say it better. :)
I wonder...is there any likelihood at all of a separate Belgian Flanders stirring the nationalist hearts of the neighbours? French Flanders only passed to France in the 17th century, I believe....and has a long tradition of being a united county under the Counts of Flanders well before that.
oh, and about that 'burgundy' post. Flanders was a feudal fief of the self-styled Grand Dukes of the West, aka the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century, but Flanders was never part of Burgundy. That is like saying that Normandy was once 'part of England' because it happened to be ruled by the same man for some time after 1066; it simply isn't accurate.
PS: Please can someone explain to me why this 'division' story is not deemed worthy to be on the 91热爆 news in the UK? I had to go to France to find out about it....
Comment 19, I think that the truth is somewhere in between. Genoa and Germany were the source and the ultimate destiny of a big part of the profits (i.e. investors), while kingdoms at that time were the ones who made the decisions and organized the expeditions. So who was the boss is a matter of choice. Probably neither of them. For instance, oftentimes Spain 's hands were tied by the lack of money, but at the same time whenever it filed for bankrupcy (something that happened at least three times), bankers had to swallow the pill.
Anyway, it is interesting to note how whenever there is a conflict in europe, half-forgotten issues from the past suddenly become important and are used as arguments to justify the modern conflict. Or is it really a matter of a couple of centuries old unfinished feuds?
We have heard in this debate from Felmings in Flanders and Wallonians in Wallonia and vice versa, and also from Flemings and Wallonians in Brussels, and abroad. It would be interesting to hear from some germanophone Belgians from the Eupen area. If Belgium were to become an ex-country, would Eupen also want full independance, or to be part of Wallonia, or to be part of Flanders (there are other isolated Fleming areas along the Wallonia-German border), or to re-join Germany (perhaps to create the Bundesland "Nordrhein-Westphalen-Eupen")?
Actually the man known in his youth as Charles of Ghent was Duke of Burgundy (not 'King of Flanders'), Archduke of Austria, King of Castile and Aragon and Naples and Sicily and... and a host of other titles, including Duke of Milan and, of course, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. And certainly he considered his domains as belongings of his family. If he felt a sense of duty, it was towards Christendom as a whole and to his family traditions.
Anyway, there is a fascinating story in a man like him, born in rich, green Flanders and raised in the brilliant Burgundian court, choosing to retire and die in a monastery sited in the center of dry, barren Spanish Extremadura.
Regarding the discovery of America, Kamen's work has very interesting points and is, in general, right, but goes entirely too far on occasions. In this particular case, it is evident Castile didn't need burgundian resources. Charles inherited the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon from Fernando V 'el Cat贸lico' roughly 25 years after Columbus voyages... True, these enterprises were financed mainly by Italian and German bankers, but such were the ways of the time all over Europe - Kings were always on the verge of bankruptcy, and the richest bankers weren't located in Spain, France or England, but in the rich cities of the Low Countries, northern Italy and southern Germany, in places like Genoa, Augsburg and Antwerp.
Truly neither side knows how lucky they are. I remember working in Antwerp in 1992 and going to the local fete. There I saw an independence stand for Flanders, most astonishing of all they wanted to unite with Socialist Netherlands and pay Dutch taxes! To which I replied go right ahead and see how you like it! Gerald in France.
Truly neither side knows how lucky they are. I remember working in Antwerp in 1992 and going to the local fete. There I saw an independence stand for Flanders, most astonishing of all they wanted to unite with Socialist Netherlands and pay Dutch taxes! To which I replied go right ahead and see how you like it! Gerald in France.
@ 18. At 02:04 PM on 02 Oct 2007, Nathani毛l wrote:
Might I also add that the Walloons were the ones that WANTED Flanders & Wallonia to have only ONE language, either French or Flemish. The Flemish parties at time asked for it to be made bilingual.
You might indeed add that, but you forgot the most important facts about that proposal:
The walloons would never have accepted dutch in their part of the country, just as they didn't accept dutch in their part of the country during the years 1815-1830.
The francophones would only have accepted french.
@ 14. At 12:47 PM on 02 Oct 2007, Jon wrote:
at the end of your post you propose what is effectively a "talentelling" (language count). Let me say that Flanders has very bad experiences with that. Every time there has been a "talentelling" the francophones rigged the votes in their favour. Now, because of their unwillingness to integrate into flemish society (while demanding the reverse from the flemish), the francophones would gain again. I'm sorry to say, but such arrogance should not be rewarded. So such a referendum is not going to happen, ever.
@ 13. At 11:59 AM on 02 Oct 2007, Vincent wrote:
You are handily fogetting the fact that the entire establishment in old Belgium was francophone and that flemish/dutch was dicriminated against. You are also forgetting that this regime of discrimination was instated by the French (during Napoleon's Reign) and only temporarily lifted during dutch rule. You are also forgetting that the leaders of the Belgian revolt had the intention of rejoining France.
Concerning "flamenco"..
It's true that the spanish word "flamenco" translates to "flemish" in many cases. Some argue that the spanish court had a lot of flemish influence, in particular very colourful and flashy way of dressing, which is also the case in gypsy culture and that this caused the word to be used for gypsy music too.
It is very likely that flamenco gets it name from being asociated with Flanders (gypsies arriving from the north, the way of dressing and behaving, the belief that musicians picked up flamenco in Flanders). However, most flamencologists also argue that the word derives from arabic "fellah mengu" meaning fugitive peasant..
The is no single valid explanation of the word's origin and maybe there are more than one reason for the word being used for gypsy/andalucian music.
Just because the word flamenco (flemish) and flamenco (andalucian music) sounds the same doesn't mean they share origins. The word "flamingo" (the bird) probably has NOTHING to do with flamenco music (although some people believe so).
Concerning 'flamenco':
As I said, the word flamenco is used also for the bird (flamingo). And I put in post 17 a possible relationship. Still weak, anyway.
n掳 18: "For the record, I am against a seperation, and were Flanders to break off, I would not want citizenship."
This hatred of certain Flemish people (often lefties) for Flanders (as an independent entity) is remarkable. It's as if English people would claim that they would not want to live in England if the UK broke apart.
The reason is probably that the call for Flemish independence is associated with the extreme right in Flanders. It's, as far as I'm concerned, a very emotional and irrational reaction (if Flanders becomes independent, it won't be because of the extreme right).
Belgium should become a confederation (like Switserland, it once was a federation but that didn't work, it even caused a brief civil war). Until its 'states' can, eventually, become independent states in a confederate EU (if the EU ever becomes a confederation).
But that won't happen any time soon, although it would solve most if not all our 'communautairy' problems, because the Francophone political parties fear that Brussels/Wallonia would receive less (and later no) transfers in such a political constellation.
That's, as far as I'm concerned, the naked truth behind all the blabla and the mist the Francophone politicians spew: it's all about the (Flemish) money. Even though Flemish political parties have repeatedly said that they don't want to end the 'solidarity' with the Francophones.
@ 26: I am happy to see that we agree in many things because I also think Kamen goes sometimes too far.
However, I think you are wrong when you say Charles inherited Castille from Ferdinand. He inherited Castille from his mother Juana.
Regarding who financed Columbus voyages, it is true that Castille did it but no significant development or exploration took place in America until much later.
Fascinating debate. To digress slightly - The article is quite right that we should be grateful in England for having (at least historically) a single language that is also spoken widely outside the UK. It makes travelling easier.
However, I don't think it's 'an accident of history' or due to the USA. IMHO there are three key reasons for the success of English in the modern world.
1) Flexibility. English is ready to use words of foreign origin rather than inventing unnecessary new words. This also gives us a uniquely rich and varied vocabulary.
2) The success of the British Empire in spreading free trade, English law and liberal society around the world. I don't claim that the Empire was solely responsible for these concepts, but it (and the attraction of these concepts) was nonetheless vital in establishing English as the lingua franca (!) across vast parts of the globe.
3) The dominance of the UK and later the US in the success story of global capitalism, for better or worse. This is now underpinned by the (consequential?) use of English on the internet, in science and other areas.
So to dismiss the story of English (our greatest export) as an accident is to slightly simplify things.
To some extent, the flexibility of English is part of the (now fading) success story of the UK. We take on board other peoples' ideas, don't worry too much about beliefs, cultural differences and political orientation. Other countries' attempts to spread their language and ideas across the world have usually been undermined by their more monolithic and less flexible cultures and ideas of identity.
The problem that we have today is a result of WWI. At that time most of the commanding officers in the Belgian Army where French speaking because French had been till then the courant tongue in Belgium within southern part of the country and the bourgeoisie in Flanders.
While the normal soldiers, most probably Flemish and Walloons, where freezing their butts in the trenches, like most allied armies at that time, the officers, some exceptions of course, would have been stationned in cosy little warm house or at least better than the trenches.
After WWI some of those frustrated Flemish soldiers created associations NOT to ask for a secession but an aknowledgment of Nederlands as a languague, and the "Flemish identity". The Tower in Diksmuide, de Ijzertoren is not a symbol of Flemish extremisme, but it is a symbol to no more war that is sadly used by nowadays extremists or politicians. Unfortunately some people took advantage of the goodwill of these people which led to the VNV in WWII which indeed sended the Flemish Legion to the Russian Front but let's be correct it has been said many times that Flemish speaking POW were released sooner so the Germans might count on the Flemish but it were the Walloons with Leon Degrelle and his movement REX that was the first to offer his services to the SS...but that's another Belgian Story.
After WWII epuration started all over Europe and also in Belgium and people who had been member of the VNV, REX or any Flemish or Walloon organisation were sometimes harshly persecuted. This gave to some people the idea to create a party that would defend the Flemish identity and if possible the seperation of Belgium...
In a laps of almost 90 years we have made of the simple demands for a recognition of Nederlands as an official language and a "Vlaamse identity" within Belgium results in harsh separatist talking on both sides.
I just want to say...before taking big decisions or condemning people try first to see or to find the cause of the problem...it's no use to go negociating without serious background informations.
@ kempenaar,
I think the expectation that people would 'become flemings' is questionable in itself, the towns surrounding Brussels may slowly become bilingual like Brussels itself, and what is wrong with that?
As I understand it, these areas surrounding the capital are the fastest growing economically and thus the engine for Belgium's future prosperity - I suspect this is not unrelated to the mixture of people who are now living there.
I would agree that there needs to be a greater emphasis on learning the other language in both communities - many young flemish are now as bad at french as francophones are at dutch - but this will not happen if the languages continue to be more and more politicised.
Yes, dutch speakers got bad treatment in the past, but you cannot build a happy future if you are obsessed with blame and guilt from history...
It will be of much interest to observe the EU's response to any developments of the current situation. If the regions move towards an eventual breakup of Belgium, it will be interesting to see how the EU handles the new states (I think this would be the first such case of the breakup of an existing member of the EU).
What's more, I wonder if any of Belgium's neighbours will be tempted to interfere in the internal politics.
One final observation; any breakup of Belgium might serve as a test run for the eventual dissolution of the UK.
It will be of much interest to observe the EU's response to any developments of the current situation. If the regions move towards an eventual breakup of Belgium, it will be interesting to see how the EU handles the new states (I think this would be the first such case of the breakup of an existing member of the EU).
What's more, I wonder if any of Belgium's neighbours will be tempted to interfere in the internal politics.
One final observation; any breakup of Belgium might serve as a test run for the eventual dissolution of the UK.
Look, I am sure Bram Mertens means very well when he tries to explain the difference between ius personae and ius soli but I fear he is missing the point. It is all about consistency, really.
It doesn't matter which concept you prefer but you should at least stick with it. And that is exactly the trouble with the French speaking part of the population; well, their political leaders anyway. They have one law for themselves (I have an inalienable right to be served in French wherever I go) and one for the others (you can no longer use Dutch the moment you leave Flanders.
But more than a language thing, I think it is a cultural phenomenon, a peculiar trait of the Latin mind that pervades every possible subject. The French speaking political leaders always claimed they were dead set against some sort of youth prison for extremely violent young offenders but were not too shy about demanding half the places when it did eventually materialise. The same applies to the traffic cameras which were considered an invasion of your privacy. After years of bickering Flanders eventually had 1000 cameras installed, Wallonia 2, while Brussels was still thinking about it. Bizarrely, they did not have such privacy problems with redistributing the proceeds. (Flanders 60 % - Wallonia 40 %, with 80+ % of the fines actually coming from Flanders).
And then they have the cheek to call the Flemings selfish
The "Diccionario Manual e Ilustrado de la Lengua Espa帽ola de la Real Academia Espa帽ola" indeed states that amongst other things (ex. the "flamingo") "Flamenco" basically means "Flemish"; the region, the language and a person.
I'm a bit disappointed that there is so much tit-for-tat in this debate. Sure, there are also Walloons who are eager to learn Dutch, just as there are Flemish who are tolerant towards the francophone. And there are separatist-minded Flemish and Walloons. It tells, however, that Walloons and Flemish need a 91热爆 website to communicate to and hopefully with each other. But the issue is not really whether this country will split, but rather how it can best serve its citizens.
Fact is that Flanders and Wallony have different needs and requirements. One example: jobs. Unemployment in the French part is highest among its youths, while in Flanders, the 45+ generation is worst hit. You cannot tackle this problem through one employment plan, hence the logic to have employment regionalised. We've seen that a national employment policy doesn't work: a minister will always tend to favour his/her own group, as proven with the Rosetta plan.
If one would stop being paranoid about any proposal that hits the table, we could go a long way. The Flemish have confirmed numerous times that they don't want to undermine national solidarity (a recent Walloon study showed that each Flemish pays 鈧 2.5 to Wallony daily). However, the present constitutional situation is hampering economic growth, job creation and other vital state functions. If the Flemish want to invest with their own funds in railway infrastructure in the port of Antwerp, they should be allowed to go ahead unhindered, and without a compensatory investment in Wallony. On the other side, it would make absolute sense to re-nationalise some responsibilities - foreign trade could be one of them.
That being said, I believe it's high time that there is respect for the current constitutional and legal situation. The current situation in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde has been ruled unconstitutional and the so-called facilities are being stretched well beyond their limits. Flemish schools in the Walloon villages with Dutch "facilities" are still being paid for by the Flemish, while Flanders pays French schools in the Flemish villages with French "facilities".
Over the past decades, Flanders has shown to Wallony that it is possible to transform outdated economies into highly desirable and modern niche markets that create employment and wealth (biotechnology to name but one). These clusters were made possible through an open, multi-party approach and close cooperation between all social players on level footing, and their effect cannot be underestimated. di Rupo's Marshall plan was a (small) step in that direction. This approach, too, would benefit greatly from constitutional reform. Rather than watching the world go 'round, it's better to take up the challenge and the responsibilities. Sure, reforming is always a step in the dark, but success and growth are the result of taking calculated risks and assuming one's own responsibilities.
I lived in the Flemish town of Leuven, just outside Brussels for a year a couple of years ago, and to be honest from speaking to young Belgians and from seeing it for myself, they definitely do prefer to avoid speaking French, with many of them claiming not even to be able to speak it (when they blatantly can, as they are all very gifted when it comes to languages). It took me only a couple of weeks to realise you were better going into shops etc and just speaking English to them rather than attempt to use the little French you might still have from school. I remember being completely shocked about it at the time!
Actually the impression I got throughout the year was that the Flemish were just a bit tired of non-Belgians living in their country as well, and I have to say myself nor any of my other European friends ever felt particularly welcome living there! I think in my time there I didn't meet a Flemish person who was in favour of keeping the country together. They're tired of Wallonia and tired of the effect of being at the centre of Europe. I say let them break up and find out for themselves that they can't have their cake and eat it.
Somebody complained that the discussion so far has centred around Brussels too much.. considering its the key to much wealth for whatever part of Belgium holds on to it, how can anybody be surprised?
To mr. Lamb: the Flemish are not tired of Wallony and not tired of the foreigners living in their country. They're tired of being called racist, fascist, intolerant etc... Tired of being put in a negative daylight all the time.
Yes, many voted for the Flemish conservatives including me, but that doesn't mean they're separatists.
How would an Englishman feel if a French came to his country and only wants to speak French. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Compare the current situation as an old couple still married, living together, but living their own life next to eachother. Maybe the Walloons come from Mars and the Flemish from Venus. A divorce is not necessary, but more autonomy would be welcome (it is tiring having a partner who always says "non" to every development you want to make).
The Flemish and Walloons can perfectly have such a marriage, the Flemish probably are more happy with that. If not having childish politicians and sensationial media interfering all the time.
We have a love-hate relationship as the English have with the Scottisch, Welsh and Irish.
So, yes, we're tired! And we just want to move on without justifying why we do certain things different.