So Long Belgium?

What should happen with Belgium?

  • It should stay together

    Votes: 31 28.7%
  • It should separate and become two independent countries

    Votes: 18 16.7%
  • It should separate and join France and the Netherlands

    Votes: 35 32.4%
  • It should separate, one becomes independent and one unites with France/Netherlands

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • Other/I don't know

    Votes: 17 15.7%

  • Total voters
    108
Belgium declared independence, rather than being manually constructed, so yes, the belgians themselves were mentally handicapped.

That's the joke of the whole situation. The so-calles Belgian revolution was lead by a bunch of rich hormon-filled kids in Brussels and some veterans of the French revolutions. Together with the incompetence of Willem I and some support by England and France, the Belgian state was born. It was more a coincidence then a revolution :lol:

This seems to suggest a lack of goodwill, no? :)

Maybe. But there is also the history part and the fact that they thought that it was more important to learn English. I don't know if that was caused by a lack of goodwill or by a lack of good judgement.

It's changing, however. Now, English and Dutch are equally important as it should be.

Err, what? :crazyeye:

Prove it. Racism is a view that certain races are biologically inferior to others. I don't think they believe in that.

To sum it up:

1) being against multiculturalism - good, or is it illegal to think that MC is a bad idea?
2) being against immigration - isn't that a right of every man to be against a government policy?
3) support for deportation of unassimilated immigrants - again, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't you have a right to demand cooperation from people who came to your country?
4) distinction between European and non-European immigrants - sounds rather logical, immigrants from Europe tend to share a similar culture and are easily assimilated compared to people from culturally different parts of the world.
5) not accepting Islam - is it now compulsory to accept an alien religion spreading un-European ideas and causing asocial behaviour? Should they accept Aum Shinrikyo too?

Don't use these words to describe something which has nothing to do with them.
Semantics.

Their predecessor, Vlaams Blok, was sentenced as a racist party a couple of years ago.They changed their name and program, and as such they can't be called racist anymore. But it's still the same people and they remain xenophobe!
 
i agree: the vlaams belang is a extreme right party, and has done much damage by tainting the Flemmish pride with their fascism.
Better examples of Flemmish national parties are the N-VA, SPIRIT(nice program, ****** politicians) and the former VN volksUnie. There used to be politicians like Hugo Schiltz and Luc van den brande. Now we're stuck with politicians as Bert ancieaux :(
 
Day 110 without a government and still no solution in sight.

Go, go Belgium :goodjob:
 
Did Belgium's economy fall apart during these 110 days ? Kind of a good demonstration the economy can live without a it ;)
Problems are starting. For example, social workers in the non-profit sector receive subsidies from the government to promote working in that sector. If their isn't any new Order (law) before the end of the year, about 15.000 jobs are threatened.
 
eh, according to the news paper we aren't getting any closer, let us not despair, we stil got 38 days for the record ;)
 
I'm a francophone who lives in Flanders. Being educated in both culture, I feel exclusively Belgian. Therefore, I hope the country won't split up.
 
The independece was mostly a Wallonian thing. Though it is pretty likely the Flemmish had enough of being part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, they most certainly did NOT want to be in one nation under Wallonian rule, which is what happened anyway.

And there was more manual construction to it than you make it appear. British and French influence for instance. The British had guaranteed Belgium its souvereignity (in 1830), which is why they had to declare war to Germany in 1914.

A lot of people argue that Belgium was created artificially. I don't agree with this. The country had been living together since the Bourguignons and apart from the Northern Netherlands since the XVI-XVII th century. I don't think you can deny that there were national feeling growing in the Southern Netherlands at that time.

"Though it is pretty likely the Flemmish had enough of being part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands"

I'm not sure that catholic Flanders was happy about having a protestant king, and having no bishop at the time.
 
A lot of people argue that Belgium was created artificially. I don't agree with this. The country had been living together since the Bourguignons and apart from the Northern Netherlands since the XVI-XVII th century. I don't think you can deny that there were national feeling growing in the Southern Netherlands at that time.

Well, given the fact that a large majority of the Flemmish, today, still think they are more Flemmish than Belgian, one is inclinedn to say that there has hardly grown a national feeling between Flemmish and Belgians.

I think we can compare it with Czechy & Slovakia. They had been in one nation since a long long year, but hardly any national feeligns had grown.

So yes, I actually can deny that there were national feelings growing during, for instance, the days of the Austrian Netherlands.
 
this is such a stupid problem...if they break up what gain is there really?

this isnt like California deciding it wants to leave the union or all the states deciding to cut all federal funding to wyoming.
 
A lot of people argue that Belgium was created artificially. I don't agree with this. The country had been living together since the Bourguignons and apart from the Northern Netherlands since the XVI-XVII th century. I don't think you can deny that there were national feeling growing in the Southern Netherlands at that time.

"Though it is pretty likely the Flemmish had enough of being part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands"

I'm not sure that catholic Flanders was happy about having a protestant king, and having no bishop at the time.

For Christ sake people, every nation is an artificial construct. Sure, some might have had some things in common, but to actually distinct you from someone from another nation, is artificial. Do people living near the German border really have more in common with people in Amsterdam than with those living just over the German border? Or to stay on topic, does a person from Antwerpen really have more in common with someone from Charleroi than with someone from Breda, or even Rotterdam? It's an artificial line that gives you your artificial nationality.

France.. very constructed, as many dialects as possible were anihilated in favour of the (I think) Parisian dialect, in order to create a nation. Germany? Very constructed. Sure they had some commonalities, but few people actually thought about something like Germany until some philosophers (like List if I remember correctly) started talking about it, and some time later Bismarck saw it would be pretty great from a realist point of view on power. But you can see even today, that the nation was constructed not too long ago. Freistaat Bayern and Sachsen. Schwaben and Badener, South-Bayern and Franken..

Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's a social construct, it is just important to know. It shows that it is not a given fact, and that it can be changed. We can develop a European nationality, that can one day replace the German, French, Dutch, etc. On the other side, we could be going a step back, where your allegiance goes to País Vasco, Catalunya, Lombardia, Sicilia, Sardegna or whatever.
 
For Christ sake people, every nation is an artificial construct. Sure, some might have had some things in common, but to actually distinct you from someone from another nation, is artificial. Do people living near the German border really have more in common with people in Amsterdam than with those living just over the German border? Or to stay on topic, does a person from Antwerpen really have more in common with someone from Charleroi than with someone from Breda, or even Rotterdam? It's an artificial line that gives you your artificial nationality.

France.. very constructed, as many dialects as possible were anihilated in favour of the (I think) Parisian dialect, in order to create a nation. Germany? Very constructed. Sure they had some commonalities, but few people actually thought about something like Germany until some philosophers (like List if I remember correctly) started talking about it, and some time later Bismarck saw it would be pretty great from a realist point of view on power. But you can see even today, that the nation was constructed not too long ago. Freistaat Bayern and Sachsen. Schwaben and Badener, South-Bayern and Franken..

Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's a social construct, it is just important to know. It shows that it is not a given fact, and that it can be changed. We can develop a European nationality, that can one day replace the German, French, Dutch, etc. On the other side, we could be going a step back, where your allegiance goes to País Vasco, Catalunya, Lombardia, Sicilia, Sardegna or whatever.
I could not agree more. :D

:hatsoff:
 
Belgium is showing incredible maturity.
They are showing to the world that the age of patriotism is dead. Finally!!!

Belgium should stay together and will stay together for this reason.
 
For Christ sake people, every nation is an artificial construct. Sure, some might have had some things in common, but to actually distinct you from someone from another nation, is artificial. Do people living near the German border really have more in common with people in Amsterdam than with those living just over the German border? Or to stay on topic, does a person from Antwerpen really have more in common with someone from Charleroi than with someone from Breda, or even Rotterdam? It's an artificial line that gives you your artificial nationality.

France.. very constructed, as many dialects as possible were anihilated in favour of the (I think) Parisian dialect, in order to create a nation. Germany? Very constructed. Sure they had some commonalities, but few people actually thought about something like Germany until some philosophers (like List if I remember correctly) started talking about it, and some time later Bismarck saw it would be pretty great from a realist point of view on power. But you can see even today, that the nation was constructed not too long ago. Freistaat Bayern and Sachsen. Schwaben and Badener, South-Bayern and Franken..

Of course it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's a social construct, it is just important to know. It shows that it is not a given fact, and that it can be changed. We can develop a European nationality, that can one day replace the German, French, Dutch, etc. On the other side, we could be going a step back, where your allegiance goes to País Vasco, Catalunya, Lombardia, Sicilia, Sardegna or whatever.

Very well said. You have culture dude, amazing!!!

The very idea of nation serves only for the political and economic elite that will be able to have their interests better listened to.
For the civilian only freedom matters.
 
For Christ sake people, every nation is an artificial construct. Sure, some might have had some things in common, but to actually distinct you from someone from another nation, is artificial. Do people living near the German border really have more in common with people in Amsterdam than with those living just over the German border? Or to stay on topic, does a person from Antwerpen really have more in common with someone from Charleroi than with someone from Breda, or even Rotterdam? It's an artificial line that gives you your artificial nationality.
...

I couldn't agree more. Belgians who want to split our country up for this reason should think twice before opening their mouth.
 
Back
Top Bottom