Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

It was started by the Francophones (Belgium was unilingual French until the end of the 19th century!). It was more than pure lingual, it was also because of religion (Belgium + South of the Netherland) were catholic, the North was protestant.

Isn't it fair to say that also the way how the French speaking people where treated by the Dutch, has something to do with the reasons for revolt?

Oh come on you pansy. Flemish people always had power, they only spoke French but they were Flemish.

Someone who speaks French and doesn't speak Dutch (or refuses to do so) is not Flemish. And you know this is just wrong what you're saying here, in Belgium's history, the Flemish were always second rank citizens (even today, the Flemish are underrepresented in our parliament, and with the new state reform, it is even getting worse, from 88 seats to 86), so I'm not going further into this.

And I can understand why immigrants and Walloons do not learn dutch. A lot of people in our part think they speak 'standard' dutch but they don't. But because they think what they speak is correct they refuse to alter their vocab and grammar consequently they are incomprehensible. And yes I know my city is the biggest sinner but hey we create the biggest part of the wealth so ;) (at least the others think that we ,from Antwerp, are arrogant in fact they are just plain farmers ;) )

It's not a matter of understanding (I don't understand it by the way), it's a matter of basic rules. It's completely wrong to come to Flanders as French-speaking Walloon and demand the Flemish start talking French against him. It shows us that that person has no respect for our culture. When a Walloon (or a Francophone person from Brussels) asks me in Leuven which train he should take, I always answer in Dutch, and if he can't understand me, that is his problem, not mine, I'm not going to answer him in French. And when I talk to Walloons, I watch my language, because I know it is for them hard to understand our dialect. But it is possible. When I was at university in Kortrijk, there were Walloons there who spoke better Dutch than some Flemish people (and they even completely understood the West-Flemish dialect, which is even a remarkable skill for non-West-Flemish Flemish people). If you really want it, it is possible.

(however I think they are too fast in their judging and must change)

I don't understand what you mean by this.

But Rubinho is right when he says that it frustrating that some people in charge (i don't care if a baker in some small town can't speak dutch fluently) are not able to build proper sentences. I do not expect a level similar to native speakers or without accent. I think it is just reasonable that such a person can express himself quite fluently. Minor mistakes allowed =p

Of course they can make mistakes. My French or English isn't perfect either. However, from people like Di Rupo (our future prime minister), I expect him to speak Dutch fluently. What he talks, isn't Dutch. It's some sort of Fretch. It's like Pfaff talking German. It's rubbish. Still, he can become prime minister. Ridiculous.

Isn't it fair to say that also the way how the French speaking people where treated by the Dutch, has something to do with the reasons for revolt?

The Walloons were never forced to use Dutch in Wallonia. Only in Brussels and Flanders. And after they got independence, they just made the same mistake, but then worse. So no, that would not be fair.

There is more to it then language when it comes to how the Dutch King dealt with the French speaking part of his Kingdom.
His conservative and autherian style of government was not really favoring the francophilles...

And after that, they did the exact same thing to the Flemish.

Ah nevermind i'm not going to discuss our situation here =p.

We have similar problems too on the south of Slovakia, but difference is that it is only 10% of magyar minority there which have problems speak by the only one state language - Slovak lang. (or just refuse it) and second difference is that this problem is not mostly internal problem but external, I mean Hungary is supporting this. And this is bad, we dont like Hungar ians too much cos hundreds years of occupation (but Magyars dont consider that as occupation, they think that Slovakia is their land to be correct with this information)

The fact that Hungarians come much later on slavic territory they dont like to hear :)

Dividing your country could help Flanders, but not help Wallons due to worse economics environment ?

no not at all!

I still think this Belgium was a mistake...only made to be a boundary between protestant Netherlands and catholic French...

Maybe the one europe thought is the solution for Belgium and many european longtime conflict-areas; once we become one big europe there is less need to be seperate and different....as long as we keep our local cultures...because since the EU these local "appolation controlle's "

how looked that region and borders before Belgium exist ? Can somebody find a map :-) ?

European history in maps ;)

We have similar problems too on the south of Slovakia, but difference is that it is only 10% of magyar minority there which have problems speak by the only one state language - Slovak lang.

I don't think it's similar. Our problem is particularly that the French-speaking people who move to Flanders (because Brussels is expanding) first refuse to integrate, and later on demand language laws, because they don't speak Dutch ... I thought those Hungarians in Southern Slovakia lived there for a long time, so that is something different. But I might be wrong there, so correct me if necessary. When they live there for (I'm just giving an example) for instance 100 years, you cannot demand them to integrate (otherwise, I would ask everyone in Brussels to use Dutch again, as Brussels was originaly a Dutch-speaking city; I'm not going to do that, Brussels is bilingual).

Damn it, have to retype it all :-(

On the short run, it will be worse for Wallonia. However, on the long term it would be better for them. For instance, the wages in Belgium are very high. However, the productivity in Wallonia is about 5% (I think, I've read an article about it quite recently) less than in Flanders. So this is bad for Wallonia, as who'd want to pay the same wages for employees that are on average 5% less effective? It's like a junky. You don't help him with giving him money and making him dependent. You help him with non-financial help so that he can be independent (economically and financially) and get rid of the drugs.

Before the 1830 revolution, Belgium was a part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (current Netherlands + Belgium + Luxembourg). That country only existed from 1815 to 1830. Before that, there was the Napolean era, so Belgium was a part of the French Empire. Before that, the area taht is Belgium now (not precise, but very similar) was under Austrian rule, before that, under Spanish rule. However, the provinces of the Netherlands (if you want to know more about them search for the County of Flanders (not to disturb with the current Flanders, the current Flanders is a part of the historic Flanders, historic Brabant and historic Liège), Duchy of Brabant, County of Holland, or search for 'the 17 provinces') each had a big autonomy. Flanders as it is today exists only because of the 'united battle' of the north of Belgium against the non-recognition of Dutch as an official language in Belgium.

I'll give you a good map tonight, when I am at home and have my pc (maps are on my pc).

Yes, they are living there more than 100years... but it is not problem that they speak with their language, problem is that they refuse use state language and second the most serious problem is that Magyars are supporting them and we all know politics (Hungarians and Slovak) how like such a conflict situation :-( so they are making that worse.

I think "similar" just in language problem....

so why Belgium exist, some people could join France and others netherlands, or not ?