Belgium: Flemish and francophone language issue

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
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 I’ll try to be as objective as I can. And my mother was Flemish, my Belgian family is (I’m 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 aren’t 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 : it’s 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 wasn’t translated in Dutch until somewhere in the 1960s. But contrary to what Flemish nationalists say today, it wasn’t 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 didn’t say much about the issue, even though the resentment was high from the beginning. They didn’t, 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 would’ve, 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 wasn’t “Politically correct”, but didn’t 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 didn’t 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 (we’ve 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 don’t 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 don’t 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. That’s what’s 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, it’s 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&V’s 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 that’s 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 that’s 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, there’s 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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 haven’t 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 it’s so complicated, why don’t you guys just split up?

Because it’s 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 that’s that. Flanders doesn’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 it’s 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. Doesn’t 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 EU’s unofficial goal is to become more important than member states, that’s 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. It’s 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:

Techniec

Drugs and Kalashnikovs
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,855
Reputation
1,938
Daps
23,291
Reppin
W/S 416
excellent thread. my good friend is getting married in a month, his cousins are francophones from belgium, theyll be coming down. will drop some of this knowledge with them

its crazy I always saw the Flemish as the "victims" too, and being historically and culturally oppressed. I sympathized because in my country (Afghanistan), us Pashtuns are the largest ethnicity but always were culturally and linguistically inferior to Farsi speakers (because Farsi is essentially the French of the East)
 

dennis roadman

nuclear war in my bag
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,451
Reputation
3,495
Daps
40,274
Reppin
solsbury hill
let's put some background music on the LP player

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQHfHVU6qHM[/ame]

:yeshrug:

how explicit is the link of all this to language, specifically? do both sides say straight up that it's language primarily that drives this tension? or is it more subtle or wide-reaching?

and how different are the cultures of the walloons and the flemish, really? like french-german (big difference) different or german-austrian (:stopitslime: can't tell em apart) different?

doesn't everyone there speak english? they should make that the language of government and newsmedia (while not excluding flemish and french and their various dialects of course), and just go about their day, no?
 

superunknown23

Superstar
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
7,872
Reputation
1,230
Daps
23,469
Reppin
NULL
Sorry, but the Wallons are notoriously lazy. So many of them are just happy to sit back at home and collect those fat unemployment checks.
That's one of the biggest points the Flemish have a problem with. They work hard, have low unemployment, pay a much bigger share of taxes and they still get spat on.
I've been in Belgium many times and I'm always amazed by how deep the animosity is between the two communities. There was always tension but it seems that it became much worse since King Baudoin died (the fact that his son Leopold III barely speaks dutch doesn't help either!)
I still got no love for them Vlaams folks though... They're racist as fukk :rudy:
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
excellent thread. my good friend is getting married in a month, his cousins are francophones from belgium, theyll be coming down. will drop some of this knowledge with them

its crazy I always saw the Flemish as the "victims" too, and being historically and culturally oppressed. I sympathized because in my country (Afghanistan), us Pashtuns are the largest ethnicity but always were culturally and linguistically inferior to Farsi speakers (because Farsi is essentially the French of the East)

Cool, always better to have a conversation on this issue, as it is quite complex. Just be aware that while some (Flemings and francophones) just dont give a f*ck about it, it is EXTREMELY touchy to others, so keep that in mind in that conversation.

Technically, it is true that Flemings WERE victims in the beginning: language wasn't recognized, everything was in French. That's why I always say that they DO have a legit historical beef. This is very important, because, stupidily, many french-speakers still DO NOT recognize this, and Flemish nationalists obviously use this to their advantage.

BUT the thing is the situation is exactly the opposite now, and they are now the ones who are insulting french-speakers, not willing to help out Wallonia while Wallonia helped them before, etc...These nationalists go as far as saying that "Belgium never did anything for Flanders" while, as a unitary state, Belgium invested in ALL of Belgium, and that there were always Flemings in the government. That's how Antwerp became one the biggest ports in Europe. But now it's precisely the opposite that is happening: since Flemings control most top positions at the federal level, most investments are geared towards Flanders: army bases close in Wallonia but open in Flanders, rail infrastructure is upgraded in Flanders but not in Wallonia, etc...The fact that they still present themselves as victims when they are more numerous, hold most key positions and are vastly richer than francophones is crazy, but it gets votes.
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
let's put some background music on the LP player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQHfHVU6qHM

:yeshrug:

how explicit is the link of all this to language, specifically? do both sides say straight up that it's language primarily that drives this tension? or is it more subtle or wide-reaching?

and how different are the cultures of the walloons and the flemish, really? like french-german (big difference) different or german-austrian (:stopitslime: can't tell em apart) different?

doesn't everyone there speak english? they should make that the language of government and newsmedia (while not excluding flemish and french and their various dialects of course), and just go about their day, no?

Good question, and basically what's at the root of the whole issue. I'll try to be clear but there is no clear-cut answer.

First, Dutch and French are extremely different languages: one is Germanic, the other is Latin. That already tells you A LOT if you are familiar with the influence of language on culture. Mutual understanding, if you haven't learned the language of the other, is impossible: a Walloon will understand an Italian speaking italian better than a Belgian speaking Dutch. But for various reasons (some good, some bad), Flemings learn French more than Walloons learn Dutch, given the impression that Walloons are lazy and/or don't respect dutch. Never mind that many Walloons speak German, English, Italian, Spanish...the image sticks. So there's this resentment from Flemings towards french-speakers that is almost a structural part of the culture.

VERY generally, and with tons of clichés, I would say that here are some of the main charateristcis of both populations

Flemings: disciplined, "serious", kind of boring, kind of cold, right-wing, very "local" (they have beef from one -flemish- village to another), very "Nordic" in their tastes (contemporary art, fashion, hi-tech), much more americanized, often speaks good french and very good english. More on the German-side regarding "belonging": a true Fleming is some one who is born in Flanders from Flemings, and who speaks Dutch (they invented the term "allochtoon", as opposed to "autochtone", to describe Flemings and Belgians of foreign -black and arab- origin).

French-speakers (Walloons and Bruxellois): more laid-back, "funny", "crazy", warm and welcoming, left-wing, less attached to where they're from, very "Southern" in their tastes, much closer to France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Morocco (many Belgian originally from those countries, our Prime Minister is the son of Italian migrants). More on the French-side regarding "belonging": what's important is where you live, not where you come from (this is starting to change slowly though).

The description of Flemings mostly suits younger generations, because they were born once the institutional divide was fully in effect: no common TV, radio, newspaper, political party, nothing "cultural" is common in Belgium, except sports. So both parts have slowly drifted away, and another language also plays a role: english. In Dutch-speaking Belgium, everything is with subtitles, whereas in French-speaking Belgium, almost everything is dubbed (:scusthov:). 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.

Regarding English, not everyone speaks it, and def not in french-speaking Belgium. English is much closer to Dutch than it is to French, so they have an advantage there, and they watch everything with subtitles, which I STILL don't know why we don't do the same in French-speaking Belgium. So it would not be a "fair" solution, and it even wouldn't be fair to impose a foreign language on local populations. Flemings, after having fought for Dutch, are not just going to accept an even MORE dominant language than French. And French-speakers are also very attached to their language, but in another way. I actually wrote a 10-page paper on the relevance of having English as a third official language in Brussels (with a focus on the presence of EU institutions), if you (or someone else) is interested, PM me an email adress.
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium

Farage? :childplease: Can't respect a eurosceptic who's sitting at the EU parliament.

Belgium is a country, thank you, with tons of very deep issues and divisions, but all in all the country still stands and there is still an "emotional" link between both communities, that mostly comes out, unfortunately, in hard times (when there was a a crazy shooter in Liège or when a bus full of Flemish kids had an accident in Switzerland last year). And most movement of Belgians is...from one Region to another. :yeshrug:

But yeah, Brits usually say that Belgium is a non-country, and that should be no surprise as Brits arent' the keenest on EU construction ("If Belgium can't make two populations live together, how could the EU do it with 27 countries?")
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
Sorry, but the Wallons are notoriously lazy. So many of them are just happy to sit back at home and collect those fat unemployment checks.
That's one of the biggest points the Flemish have a problem with. They work hard, have low unemployment, pay a much bigger share of taxes and they still get spat on.
I've been in Belgium many times and I'm always amazed by how deep the animosity is between the two communities. There was always tension but it seems that it became much worse since King Baudoin died (the fact that his son Leopold III barely speaks dutch doesn't help either!)
I still got no love for them Vlaams folks though... They're racist as fukk :rudy:

I'm sorry breh, but that's downright insulting and racist. It is true that there IS a culture of "sitting back" and that's a shame, but let's not lump all of them in there, just like all Blacks aren't on welfare.

Many french-speakers have a problem with it too, and we know the source: the Socialist Party has had WAY too much power for the past 50 years, and unemployed people generally vote left. I was unemployed for two damn years and I can tell you that A LOT is done to keep you in that position. I consider myself left-wing but boy some of the stuff that the Socialist Party has done there is insane. It is indeed a beef that Flemings rightfully have, and an increasing proportion of francophones too (especially right-wing, but also some left-wing). BUT there is also a point that must be mentionned: in Brussels, many francophones are unemployed because Flemings don't want to employ them (because, as you say, "they are notoiously lazy"), and it also something that stems out of the EU-expat community (generally English-speaking, who often look down at french-speakers -France in particular, but we get lumped in-).

Why you talking about Leopold III though, he died 30 years ago. BEFORE Baudoin. :manny:
 

dennis roadman

nuclear war in my bag
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,451
Reputation
3,495
Daps
40,274
Reppin
solsbury hill
Regarding English, not everyone speaks it, and def not in french-speaking Belgium. English is much closer to Dutch than it is to French, so they have an advantage there, and they watch everything with subtitles, which I STILL don't know why we don't do the same in French-speaking Belgium. So it would not be a "fair" solution, and it even wouldn't be fair to impose a foreign language on local populations. Flemings, after having fought for Dutch, are not just going to accept an even MORE dominant language than French. And French-speakers are also very attached to their language, but in another way. I actually wrote a 10-page paper on the relevance of having English as a third official language in Brussels (with a focus on the presence of EU institutions), if you (or someone else) is interested, PM me an email adress.

word. i stupidly lumped belgians in with the dutch and assumed they all spoke english. i've never actually been to belgium despite family in france and holland :ld:

are you a sports fan? i find it somewhat tragic that belgium has a host of young football talent at a time when the country is falling apart.

I'm sorry breh, but that's downright insulting and racist. It is true that there IS a culture of "sitting back" and that's a shame, but let's not lump all of them in there, just like all Blacks aren't on welfare.

explain this culture please. is it similar to the alleged french notion of productivity, which to americans appears to be too lazy or relaxed to get anything done? or something completely different?

it's fascinating that such a subculture could grow :ohhh:
 

superunknown23

Superstar
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
7,872
Reputation
1,230
Daps
23,469
Reppin
NULL
Why you talking about Leopold III though, he died 30 years ago. BEFORE Baudoin.
I meant that idiotic prince (is it Philip or laurent?) Anyway, that country is fukked up.
I remember that hoax they did on the TV news a couple years ago when they announced that the country was officially splitting up... Flemish folks started dancing on the streets! :pachaha:
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
word. i stupidly lumped belgians in with the dutch and assumed they all spoke english. i've never actually been to belgium despite family in france and holland :ld:

are you a sports fan? i find it somewhat tragic that belgium has a host of young football talent at a time when the country is falling apart.



explain this culture please. is it similar to the alleged french notion of productivity, which to americans appears to be too lazy or relaxed to get anything done? or something completely different?

it's fascinating that such a subculture could grow :ohhh:

Yeah I am a sports fan (basketball) but indeed we have a pretty good young Belgian soccer squad right now...and that shows how two-sided many Flemings are: they vote for nationalistic/separatists, yet support the national team :snoop:

Well it is a fact that latin countries/population do "enjoy" life more than germanic/anglo-saxon ones (we're obviously talking in VERY large generalizations here): the culture of eating, taking time with friends/family, just enjoying life at a slower pace in general. To put in very simple terms, most "latins" consider that life is something to be enjoyed, and that work is a MEANS to better enjoy life, not the endgoal. For anglosaxons, that's often labelled "laziness" or "lack of ambition", but if an Italian of a French has the choice between working less and havuing more time to enjoy life (cultural activities, travelling, being with friends, family, pursuing personnal development goal) and working more and being able to buy another car, more time than not he'll choose to work less. People just have different priorities in life.

But make no mistake, and this is someting that Americans don't like to hear (and hardly ever do): French people work less hours, have more holidays and...have a higher average productivity. It's not even surprising: the fact that they have a lot of holidays means more time to recharge and to feel "good", meaning better work at the office. Less work hours means less stress, meaning also better work. And anyway how effective are you really after the 8th or 9th hour sitting at your desk? It's the same thing in Japan (I think in Germany too, but not sure): the US outperforms France not because they work better, but becaue they work more hours. But while being able to buy a second car or the latest Iphone may be more important for the American, being able to go to the museum or have a walk in the park might be more important for the French guy. And they get the job done, France isn't a top 10 economy in the world by sipping wine all day long. Same with (french-speaking) Belgians, this friend of mine just turned down a job for a lesser-paid part time one, so she can pursue her interest in photography. Same with Italians, and believe me that after living there I can say that Italians are extremely hard workers, but people just see the dolce vita postcards.

Of course this can cause excesses in which people enjoy life a little too much, and that definitely exists, but there are excesses in the other direction too where everything is work-related and done for a profit. Different strokes for different folks :yeshrug:
 

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
I meant that idiotic prince (is it Philip or laurent?) Anyway, that country is fukked up.
I remember that hoax they did on the TV news a couple years ago when they announced that the country was officially splitting up... Flemish folks started dancing on the streets! :pachaha:

That would be Laurent, they're considering taking his "royal allowance" (don't know the technical term in english for the money members of Royal families get) because he f*cks up too much.

Hmm...I don't remember any Flemish folks dancing in the streets breh. Everybody was shocked, but mostly because it was extremely realistic.
 

TrueEpic08

Dum Shiny
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
10,031
Reputation
871
Daps
17,183
Reppin
SoCal State Beaches
Good thread.

I was just reading about some of the divisions going on in Belgium not too long ago, and it's getting pretty damn ugly. I've even read that there are pushes among the Flemish populace and the Flemish in government for essentially "Dutch-only" towns, where speaking "foreign languages" (i.e., French and even English in some cases) are heavily frowned upon, which of course makes me none too pleased (More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/o...languages.html?ref=languageandlanguages&_r=2&).

@mbewane, since you seem to be in the thick of things, how accurate is the situation in that article for the rest of the country? If it's that bad throughout, I'm not sure how the country survives without a split at best, and outright civil war at worst.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mbewane

Knicks: 93 til infinity
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
18,630
Reputation
3,866
Daps
52,991
Reppin
Brussels, Belgium
Good thread.

I was just reading about some of the divisions going on in Belgium not too long ago, and it's getting pretty damn ugly. I've even read that there are pushes among the Flemish populace and the Flemish in government for essentially "Dutch-only" towns, where speaking "foreign languages" (i.e., French and even English in some cases) are heavily frowned upon, which of course makes me none too pleased (More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/o...languages.html?ref=languageandlanguages&_r=2&).

@mbewane, since you seem to be in the thick of things, how accurate is the situation in that article for the rest of the country? If it's that bad throughout, I'm not sure how the country survives without a split at best, and outright civil war at worst.

The article is somewhat accurate, just a couple notes: "French Walloon" doens't make sense, it should read "french-SPEAKING Walloon". Just by reading that I knew that it was written by a non-Belgian, and was not surprised that it was written by a french journalist.

Indeed, some things do get quite ugly. The example of Grimbergen is well-known, and not an exception. In many schools, kids cannot speak other languages than Dutch, even during recess (but again, this is what happened a century ago in Flanders, where kids were not allowed to speak dutch at school!). In some cities, non-dutch speaking kids were prohibited from playing in those things they have in parks for kids (with sand and stuff), because "in the case of an emergency, they wouldn't understand" :comeon:. 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.

With all that being said, reality on the ground is, of course, more complex. While this nationalistic/chauvinistic/separatist/racist movement is wide, there are also MANY Flemings who do not support it. That thing in Grimbergen was first denounced by local Flemings who didn't like the message it was sending about the city. That's one of the many reasons that I decided to learn Dutch: to understand what's going on and to go beyond what the french-speaking media feeds me (they are obviously biased too).

I doubt that the conflict will ever become physical: we've had some scuffles in the past (there are various "activist" flemish groups, there were "marches" on Brussels in the past, and french-speaking students were kicked out of teh University of Leuven to the sound of "Walen buiten" -"Walloons, out") but teh divide is already quite wide, so wide that you can easily live your whole life on one side of teh divide and never have physical contact with the other. And we're already quite down the road, so it's no longer at the point that you NEED to "fight for your rights" or whatever, those are insured. Insults fly, but it's a very political thing: when I go in Flanders it's not like people are throwing stones at me. Especially if you just TRY to speak dutch, a lot of Flemings suddenly totally open up. And on teh other hand, a lot of french-speakers are just too laid-back to care that much :dead:

Also take into account that Belgium is, all things considered, quite a rich country, and that even the unemployed, thanks to the very generous social state, can live decently. That level of comfort obviously eases tensions. Religion is the same, so that's not a factor. IF the social net shrinks (and especially if it only shrinks for one language-group) then the situation might change, you never know, but I doubt that it will ever become very physical. I have a lot of foreign friends (Italians, French...) who thought that there was a civil war in Belgium :skip: 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 :cheers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top