Belgium & Flanders
Belgium is centrally located in Europe. Here you find more of its geography. Belgium is about the size of Maryland. Here is a list of rivers, cities and mountains/hills in Belgium.
The Ardennes, where the Battle of the Bulge in WW-II took place, are in the south side of the country.
I grew up in the area referred to as "De Kempen" (Campine in English) in the North-East part which covers east-Antwerp and parts of Limburg.
In the North there is the Kalmthoutse Heide.
Belgium consists of three major regions: Flanders (Dutch speaking, 60% population), Wallonia (French speaking) and Brussels (bilingual). There is also a small German-speaking community in Belgium, which is governed by Wallonia.
The region of Flanders covers the provinces of:
- Antwerp (major cities: Antwerp, Mechelen, Turnhout, Herentals and Lier),
Antwerp
Mechelen
Turnhout
Herentals
- Limburg (cities: Hasselt, Genk, Diepenbeek)
- Flemish-Brabant (cities of Zaventem, Leuven, Diest, Tervuren, Tienen)
- East-Flanders (with the cities: Ghent, Geraardsbergen and Aalst)
- West-Flanders (with the cities of Bruges and Ostend).
Bruges
Ostend
The region of Wallonia consists of the provinces of:
- Walloon-Brabant (cities: Waterloo, Nivelles, Wavre),
Liege
Malmedy
Spa
Eupen
Dinant
Rochefort
Ciney
- Hainaut (cities: Charleroi, Mouscron, Chimay, Tournai),
- Luxembourg (cities: Arlon, Bastogne, Marche-en-Famenne).
Arlon
Bastogne
History in short
Belgium as a country was only founded in 1830, which is very young by European standard. it was formed out of a political necessity as a buffer state between warring factions out of a compromise between major European nations. It originated out of a revolution
against the United Kingdom of Netherlands to which it belonged. Although religious motivations were used to get the public's support (the area covered by Belgium was primarily Roman-Catholic), economic reasons were at heart of the conflict. The southern regions were under-represented at the Dutch court. There were also strong political and cultural differences between the Francophone southern part of what is now Belgium, who preferred association with the French court over the Northern-Dutch. A war ensued between the 'rebel' Belgians and the Dutch. It got finally settled in 1839 in the Treaty of London. The stakes were high. in the late 1700's, early 1800's, Europe started the first major industrialization. This movement was led by Britain, but closely followed by the steel industry in Wallonia, which was one of the richest regions in Europe. At that time, the region of Flanders was mainly agricultural and economically and culturally dominated by Wallonia (more about that in next chapter).But the territory of Belgium has a much richer history.
First roamed by Neanderthals, followed by Homo Sapien, it was populated by Celts and Germanic tribes. Out of this the area of Gaul became inhabited by Belgae and was part of the Roman Empire under the name of Gallia Belgica. This is where the name Belgium (Belgie in Dutch and Belgique in French) came from.After the Roman Empire fell (5th century), the area was further occupied by Germanic tribes. The Franks installed a Merovingian period under Clovis I. In that period, the Moors, tried to invade Europe but did not succeed. This period was followed by the Carolingian period (in the 7th century) under emperor Charlemagne (born in current-day Wallonia) who united most of Europe. The area was also referred to as the Low Countries.In the 9th century, the Vikings finally got defeated in our area. We then became the Holy Roman Empire. This lasted until the 12th century, after which the region was split up. Current day Flanders consisted then of County of Flanders (spanning the current provinces of East- and West Flanders), Duchy of Brabant (current provinces of Antwerp and Vlaams Brabant) and Duchy of Limburg (covering Limburg).
In the 13th and 14th centuries were the Golden age for the cities (Antwerp, Bruges, ..) who were independent entities and maintained a special relationship with the ruling royalties. They were granted independent rights in favor of taxes. This was a time of great prosperity.
In the 15th century, the area became part of Burgundy and Habsburg under Charles V. In this time, the cities of Antwerp, Bruges and brussels developed even further in major centers of commerce and textile industry. In the 15th century, the Flemish Primitives became active. Belgium later came under the rule of Spain in the mid 1500's. Around that time, we became known as the Southern Netherlands. In the early 1700's, we came under the rule of yet another monarchy, the Austrian Habsburgs. This was followed by a short period as the United States of Belgium.That didn't last long because after the French Revolution in 1789, the French First Republic annexed our region. The French repressed the Catholics, and the Dutch language and culture in Flanders (the French really like their language and hate anybody speaking another). When they started to conscript all men into the army, a revolt ensued from the ranks of the Flemish peasant population. This is where the first seeds of the Flemish movement were sown.
After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1815, we came under the rule of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, until the revolution in 1830 (see above).A couple of things become obvious from this history:
(1) our territory has been ruled by many different powers
(2) a lot of wars have been waged on our land
Here are a couple (by far not all) of references to battles and wars waged in our territories. These were were all part of bigger conflicts that impacted the whole European region:
Gallic Wars, Battle of Ambleve, Battle of Leuven, Battle of the Golden Spurs, Mad War, Armagnac-Burgundian War, Hundred year War, Hook and Cod Wars, Thirty Year War, Eighty Year War, Battle of Turnhout, Battle of Niewpoort, War of Devolution, Franco Dutch War, War of the Reunions, Nine Year War, War of the Spanish Succession, Anglo Dutch War, War of the Quadruple allegiance, War of Austrian Succession, Barrier Treaty, Battle of Turnhout (1789), Brabant Revolt, French Revolutionary Wars, Peasants War, Battle of Quattre-Bras, Battle of Wavre, Battle of Waterloo, Belgian Revolution, World War I, World War II
This should explain why current day Belgium is a big proponent of an enhanced role of Europe to become one day: The United States of Europe (something that to this day, still not exists). Because the territory of Belgium has always been part of some grater European power, the concept of United States of Europe is not much new. It also explains why current day Belgium is always reluctant in engaging in military conflict (e.g. Belgium refusal to participate in the US invasion of Iraq). Many wars have been fought on our territory. People that have survived WWII (air raids, Nazi atrocities, Gestapo police indoctrination, resistance against occupying forces, famine, devastated economies, ...) are still around. Their experience still has a major influence on the country's leadership. You might also wonder why the people from the Belgian territory have never been able to build up a strong presence and resist the constant stream of invasions: for the simple fact that the central location without natural borders is impossible to defend. Why do you think Germany invaded Belgium first to get to France, because of the terrain. Britain can claim a long line of constant monarchy for one reason only: it is impossible to invade an island like England. Same for Japan, the United States, Spain, Italy. They all have strong natural borders.
Many say that current day Belgium is an artificial country. That is true to some degree. The parts that make up Belgium have rich historical and cultural roots, but the country Belgium as an entity itself only survives on the assumption that Flemish and Walloons can live together. But they have never been, and probably never will be a cultural unity.
Belgium is ruled by a monarchy which was selected as a consensus to appease the surrounding European nations that saw the recent French Revolution as too much of a treat. The legal foundation of the Belgian monarchy was however very modern for its day because the Monarch swears allegiance to the Constitution and thus forms a Constitutional Monarchy. The first King, Leopold I
was a consensus figure among European nations, not someone with a long history and connection with the public. The Belgian Royalty have always been Francophone. The Flemish have always felt less affinity with their Royals. Even today, Dutch is not a comfortable language for members of the Royal family to speak, if any at all. This is regrettable because it is the Flemish that gave their support to the return for King Leopold III from exile after WWII when he was accused of collaboration with Nazi Germany. The Belgian monarchy still has a fair amount of power. Although they are bound by the Constitution and Parliament has most of the power, the monarch has the power to form a government, swear in and dismiss ministers, and signs all laws. In practical terms, the monarch respects the outcome of the election to appoint politicians to form a government, but when the vote is split narrowly, it pays to be on the monarch's good side. That is why most serious politicians shy away from criticizing the monarchy. A well supportive career politician can find himself sitting on the Crown Council.
Like most other Western countries, Belgium was also a colonial power. In the late 1800's, Europe divied up the African continent amongst themselves. The Belgian King King Leopold II
got his hand on the territory of Congo, which is now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo. With the help of the British explorer Stanley he developed the Congo Free State, which became a country independent of Belgium, but in the private ownership of Leopold II. He was able to retain the Congo privately until a British report exposed a brutal regime which eventually led to relinquishing the territory to the Belgian government in 1908, when the Congo was annexed as a colony. The report was correct in exposing and attempt to end the brutal regime, but the British Empire can hardly claim any moral superiority, being a colonial power themselves. The Congo became independent in 1960 but that did not help the people that much. Since the early 70-ties, under the rule of Mobutu who, with the help of US, Belgian, French and other governments, maintained a totalitarian regime, with the purpose of guaranteeing a stable supply of the Congo's natural resources for the Western industries. This regime resulted, until this day, in a devastated economy, civil war, poverty and despair (similar to the rest of Africa, that seemed to be unable to improve their fate after regaining independence of their colonial powers). In the 1600's, when Flanders was part of the Low Countries, similar to Britain and Spain, the Dutch Empire expanded its border to many colonies overseas (Dutch colonization of the Americas, New Netherland, Asia, Africa and South America) true the first multinational company, the Dutch East Indies Company (VOC).Finally, here is an article (Flanders and the birth of America) that claims that much of the US Democracy was heavily influenced by the Flemish cities in the Middle Ages.
Current day Flanders (Vlaanderen in Dutch) covers the part of Belgium where Dutch is spoken. The boundaries of the region over the years have shifted, but the language was always the common factor. There is also a part called French Flanders in the North of France, around the town of Lille, where the local dialect is based on Flemish (the Dutch language spoken in Flanders), because it was once ruled by the counts of Flanders. It is now French. The Netherlands has a province called Zeelandic Flanders (Zeeuws Vlaanderen) which has also been part of the greater Flanders area in history. This area is now Dutch.
Flanders and Holland have for large parts of history been closely tied, sharing language and culture. The main historical divide was when Holland became more Protestant, and Flanders remained mostly Roman-Catholic. Wallonia, that shares the Roman-Catholic faith, used this to their advantage in getting Flanders on their side in their revolt against the Netherlands. All official business in Flanders was conducted in French (religion, government, courts, education, media, arts, ...). Flanders had a rich history in the Middle-Ages, where the individual cities like Antwerp, Bruge and Brussels thrived in art, trade and craftsmanship, but toward the 1800's rescinded into a mostly agricultural-oriented community, which was mostly dominated by the French speaking nobility who favored close ties with then rich Wallonia and France.
Although Dutch has always been the official language shared with Holland, French rule in the 1800's demoted the language to a 2nd class status. That is why many local dialects evolved, but the written Dutch has always been the same as that used in The Netherlands. The Dutch Language Union governs the Dutch language and has both Dutch and Flemish members. That means the official rules are the same, but it is easy to distinguish a Dutch speaker from Holland from a Dutch speaker from Flanders. This is similar to the English language, which is shared by both the US and the UK.
The Flemish movement, which pursues independence of Flanders from Wallonia has its roots in the Peasant War, which was a revolt of the Flemish Peasants against the French rulers, who conscripted all able men in the military and suppressed the use the Dutch language and culture. Even after the Belgian Revolution, the French speaking Walloons, who dominated the country actively pursued eradication of the Flemish culture and use of the Dutch language. Understandably, because the Dutch King tried to do the same in favor for the Dutch language before the revolution.
Before the 1800's the economy was centered in Flanders. That shifted towards Wallonia in the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800's. When The Walloons dominated the country (with the help of the French), they neglected the development of Flanders, and diverted 80% of GNP to Wallonia, which led to great poverty in Flanders. However, they did not succeed in their effort to eradicate the Flemish culture completely. Several events over the next 150 years all contributed piecemeal to the independence struggle of Flanders.
Before 1878, the Dutch language was banned and use of it led to severe punishment. After 1878, Dutch was allowed to be used for official purposes (but did not mandate French speaking officials to use the language when addressing Dutch speakers), but French still remained a major dominating language. A lot of small events led to small victories over the coming years. One notable event was that of a father declaring his newborn son refused to declare in French. He was fined and his case escalated to the Supreme Court. As in most of these cases, after a long struggle the conflict ended up in a reluctant favorable ruling for the Flemish, but with a side note that prevented that the Francophones could be compelled to have to learn Dutch. Something they still loath to this day.
It took one of the bloodiest wars in humanity (WW I) to have the Dutch language officially recognized in 1919. This is still remembered annually in the IJzerbedevaart. In WW I, most Belgian soldiers were Flemish peasants. The Belgian officers were mostly Francophone. A lot of them neglected to give orders in Dutch. The phrase "Et pour les Flamans la meme chose" (roughly translated: "The order I just gave in French also apply to the Flemish") used by these officers still raises a similar emotional response with the Flemish as the phrase "Arbeit macht Frei" with the Jews. The inability to understand the orders wreaked havoc among the Flemish troops who did not speak French. At least, this is what the Flemish movement has claimed for many years. Later historic research debunked this claim. Fact is that many soldiers died. Most Soldiers were Flemish. Most officers were French-speakers. Whether many soldiers died because of their inability to understand the order given remains contentious. It depends if whether more soldiers died in Belgian ranks then did with the allies. Fact remains there was a large social inequality and there are many documented cases of French-speaking dignitaries actively pursuing the official eradication of the Dutch-speaking culture. They did however always pursued this using legal, administrative and economical means. Never did they resort to or even think about ethnic cleansing as in the Balkans in the 90-ties.
Today, only Belgian officers are required to be bilingual in the Belgian Armed Forces. A Belgian officer is required to address their troops in their native language. Soldiers and warrant officers are not required to speak the other language. In reality, many Francophone sergeants still dare to use the phrase "Et pour les flammands la meme chose" (I have heard it used several times when I did my military service in 1993), but a lot of the Flemish sergeants use French when commanding Francophone troops. This is very common: Flemish will more easily switch to French than Francophones are able or willing to switch to Dutch.
The fact that officers are required to be bilingual is very uncommon in Belgium. The Flemish, in their struggle to get the Dutch language officially recognized, had strived for a bilingual community, where government officials would be compelled to be bilingual. This was strongly opposed by the Francophones, who settled on dividing the country in two uni-lingual parts. Anything but having to learn Dutch.
Between WWI and WWII, a strong Flemish Nationalist movement was born, that pursued equalization of both languages, which led to Dutch being recognized as the sole official language in Flanders in 1930. Nationalist movements are always popular when people perceive their culture to be under attack. Similar to the current perception of Western countries being under 'attack' from muslim immigrants, in those days, Flemish people were very sensitive about the reality of French domination.
This unfortunately led to a very contentious and convoluted period in the Flemish movement. Hitler took advantage of the Flemish discontent and led them to believe the feasibility of a Greater Netherlands state and finally be disconnected from the French dominance. This led to a portion of the Flemish Nationalist group's collaboration with the Nazi's. The collaboration consisted of two main parts: (1) a group of Flemish volunteers joined the Waffen-SS and ended up participating on the Eastern Front campaign against the Soviets, and (2) domestic law enforcement, where Flemish people worked with the Germans to track down and prosecute resistance fighters and helped round up Jews to be shipped to concentration camps. Both groups legitimized their action because of their strong Right-wing Nationalistic sentiments. Both groups were strongly prosecuted and severely punished after the war. Many were executed, imprisoned and stripped from their civil rights. I never understood or supported the need to prosecute the Jews, especially in the light of having been discriminated against ourselves by the French. Maybe it is similar to how these days Israeli's treat the Palestinians. (I don't agree with but) I do however understand that from the viewpoint of many Flemish young men with ties to the Flemish Movement, it made sense to them to join the Flemish brigades in the German Waffen-SS under the condition that they would go fight the communists and that it would help legitimize the creation of a greater Netherlands territory in a German dominated post-War Europe. I don't see this to be any different than what the US-led allies (including Belgium) did in the Cold War, Korea (where Belgium contributed 3500 troops)
or Vietnam when Communism was seen as the biggest treat to the Western culture. To them, it didn't matter whether this anti-Communist campaign was led by Americans or Germans. (you have to understand that the Germanic culture - with many films and music from Germany - was much more prevalent in pre-war Flanders than the Anglo-Saxon culture. The US only became a world power after WWII). Belgium had already capitulated to Germany and being ruled by foreign rulers is something the Flemish had gotten used to in the last 1000 years. So for them, the invasion was a done deal and they were looking at the next treat from Communism, who had a strong chance of taking over Europe. On a side note, although the Walloons have always been a lot more socialist and leaned towards the Romanic influences from France, a fairly large group of Walloons also collaborated with the Germans.After WWII, the collaboration of some Flemish Nationalists was detrimental to the Flemish cause. It set back the cause. it took until the sixties when a long sequence of state reforms got started. A process that continues to this date. This results in growing complex language laws which were needed to reduce the French dominance of public government. If you only look at today's news, the Flemish are being painted as ultra-nationalists that want to ethnically cleanse their region from French-speakers, similar to the Serbian War in the Balkans or the Nazi campaign in WWII. The Flemish collaboration did not help this cause. In fact, you have to understand the history to understand where all this comes from. The last real language-related ethnic cleansing in Flanders was the Bruges Matins in 1302 which was followed by the Battle of the Gulden spurs where the Flemish defeated the French Army, the latter still being remembered on the Flemish national holiday. This event was one of the first to demonstrate that it is possible to defeat a cavalry by infantry, a tactic that was repeated by the Scottish (who share a common history with the Flemish in respect to being suppressed by the Brits) against the Brits.
The current state of affairs is not an ideal situation by far, but is the result of many decades of compromises and negotiations between both language groups. E.g. The Flemish people constitute approximately 60% of the Belgian population and the French speakers about 40%, yet around the turn of the century, the French-speaking community dominated the country and claimed 80% of taxes. Instead of instituting a 1-man-1-vote democracy (as is common almost everywhere else in the world), the Walloons have negotiated a 50% share of the national vote in Parliament, i.e. 40% of the people have 50% of the vote. There are also provisions that allow communities to veto any law that gets passed by a majority, but where the majority consists of a majority of a single community if they feel that law is not beneficial to their community. That makes it very hard to apply any significant policy in Belgium.
Instead of making the country bi-lingual (something the Flemish would not have minded), the Walloons pressed for two separate uni-language regions and demarcate a language border (in some way aching to the border between North-Korea and South-Korea, with that difference that there are no border guards or barbed wire and you don't get shot when crossing the line). This did not help the integration of the country.
There is a fundamental difference how French and Dutch speakers define their territory: the Flemish define their territory based on geographic borders. The French speakers tend to want to enforce a territory by the language spoken by the people living there. They translate that roughly to something like: "I move into a Flemish town - I speak French - therefore, the local government has to address me in French and I don't need to speak the language of my neighbors". That leads to situations in communities around Brussels (in Flemish territory) where significant number of French speakers have moved into (and have priced the native Flemish population out of the housing market), to enforce the government to provide them services in their language, rather than adopting the language of the community they moved into.
Following is a summary of the ongoing current issues:
Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde - one of the current hottest potatoes is a remnant of the pre-language border days, where the electoral communities of Brussels (which is bilingual) is joined with Flemish communities. This results in a perverse situation where French-speaking politicians can be elected in Flemish territory but not the reverse. The Flemish are asking to split up the region according to the language border. That would result in cutting of the support for the French speakers in Flemish territory. Although they are a minority, they are politically very powerful (little bit like the Cuban community in Florida). This conflict gave Prime Minister Yves Leterme a big headache when he tried to resolve this issue uder pressure from his coalition partner NV-A (a conservative Flemish Nationalist party fighting for more Flemish independence, not to be confused with the ultra-right wing nationalist party Vlaams Belang - who more focuses on expelling migrants and Islam influence).
Brussels - traditionally a Dutch-speaking city, has become a primarily French-speaking city. The Walloons use this fact to claim the city to their territory. Truth is that the reason for the majority of French speakers in Brussels are not Walloon but are due to the following reasons: (1) Muslim immigrants from Morocco, (2) European civil servants prefer using French over Dutch, (3) employees of international corporations holding their European headquarters in Brussels prefer French over Dutch but come to realize the English is as much of an integrated language, so Brussels will probably evolve to an English speaking enclave over the coming decades. Political issues are with the language used in the schooling system (Dutch vs French), mandating knowledge of Dutch and French for Brussels civil servants and service workers (police, municipal workers, hospital workers, ...).
Language facilities - with the demarcation of the language border, some communities with a significant minority that spoke a different language than that of the newly created territory, were given legal facilities (the ability to communicate with their local government in their native language instead of the official language). The Dutch always interpreted this as a transitional measure to allow people to integrate in the community of their choice, and after several decades, the Flemish are starting to push for relinquishing these facilities, claiming enough time was given to assimilate. The French speakers always saw these measures as permanent, so they did not have to assimilate, which they never did. This leads to hilarious situations where French-speaking elected officials are unable to express themselves in the mandatory official Dutch language in town-hall meetings.
Tax transfers - apart from the language divide, the biggest political sore spot is the continuing transfer of tax money from the Flemish side to the Walloons. Depending on how you count, somewhere between 4 and 6 BILLION EURO's gets transferred ANNUALLY from Flanders to Wallonia. This is tax money collected in Flanders that is spent in Wallonia. In the 1800's more than 87% of the taxes collected were spent in Wallonia. That has improved but not to an acceptable level. The no 1 reason why the Walloons fight every attempt by the Flemish to reform the country to give the Flemish more political autonomy is to safeguard these transfers. They fear that one day, the Flemish will be able to end these transfers which Wallonia desperately needs. Wallonia has almost always been predominately socialist. This originates from the days following economic prosperity and active steel industry in Wallonia (lots of steel workers). That industry has dwindled down significantly but many of the old steel workers are still unemployed today. The Flemish tax money is needed to maintain their unemployment benefits. Termination of these benefits will be political suicide for the Socialist party in Wallonia. The other part is that 40% of the working Walloon population works for the government. An other way for the Socialists to stay in power. The Flemish do not necessarily want to terminate these transfers immediately, but they do ask that the money is used to invest in the Walloon economy (like venture capital) to create new jobs rather than to continue to support the Walloon Welfare state.
French-discouraging local laws and codes in Brussels Peripheral communities - over the years, many French speakers have moved from Brussels to the communities on the outskirts of Brussels. The way the language laws have evolved, as soon as you cross the Brussels border, you end up in Flemish territory and are as such governed by Flemish government and is the official language Dutch. Some communities with a significant minority of French speakers were given special facilities (Drogenbos, Kraainem, Linkebeek, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Wemmel, Wezembeek-Oppem). However, many French speakers also moved into other communities. These people were usually more affluent and drove up the prices of local real-estate significantly, making it impossible for Flemish people that grew up in the area to buy property. As the number of French speakers grew, instead of integrating in the cultural life of the community they made their home and learning the language of their neighbors, they created a parallel culture and started dominating life as a whole in that community. In reaction to that, some communities are trying to preserve the Flemish character by passing some select laws that try to discourage the invasion of French culture. E.g. communities like Zaventem has laws that mandates buyers of public land and subsidized housing to pass a language exam. Also people taking advantage of social support programs funded by the Flemish government can lose their benefits if they are unable to demonstrate mastering the basics of the Dutch language after one year. By themselves, these measures might hint at some minority repressing measures used by totalitarian governments (e.g. Nazi's, Balkans, ...) in the past, but you have to understand the context they came about. It is an attempt to preserve the cultural nature of a community against a fast-growing invasion of a foreign culture that does not seem to be interested in preserving the original cultural roots. It is never the intent of the Flemish (apart from some hot-head ultra-nationalist parties like Vlaams-Belang) to discriminate against everything that is not 5th generation Flemish. The Flemish don't care that much that you are not a native Flemish and usually show a significant interest in other cultures. By mandating basic Dutch language skills for people that settle on government-provided property, they hope that the basic knowledge is a sign of people with a reasonable intent to integrate in society, rather than create their own parallel culture. When you are visiting or living temporary in Flanders, nobody cares what you speak.
These evolutions are currently under investigation by the European Union's language discrimination committees, in response to complaints by French-speaking politicians. This process can easily take several decades to conclude (if ever).
Does all this make Flanders a hostile environment to non-Dutch speakers ?
NO - in fact, you are much more likely to be able to communicate in common Western languages (English, German and even French) with Flemish people then you will in Wallonia. When Flemish hear that someone is not a native Dutch speaker, they will do their best to switch to the other person's language. The central location of Belgium in Europe and the language-friendly nature make it an ideal environment for foreign companies to locate European headquarters. The regular Cable TV streams the TV channels of all neighboring countries, and of those countries with significant populations in Belgium. Also, the handful of Flemish channels (public and commercial) show all foreign shows (primarily US and British) in the original language with Dutch subtitles. International networks like CNN are also easily accessible. In Fact, Flemish pop culture is very much dominated by international products (especially from the US). Also, some community town halls (typically those around Brussels and other major cities, e.g. Zaventem) do provide certain times during the week that non-Dutch speakers can come in with questions. They can be addressed in English and French.
But you have to make a distinguish between a "Hi, I am an American visitor and my apologies that I do not speak Dutch"-attitude and a "Although I was born in Belgium, I only speak French and i can't be bother to have paid any attention in school when I was given government-funded Dutch language lessons"- attitude. The Flemish would never dream of being hostile to people from the first category visit, live and work in Flanders. Their 'political hostility' is focused primarily on people from the second category.
Apart from some occasional hot-headed drunken brawl, you will never see a public fight amongst Flemish and Walloons. The fighting happens mostly between politicians from both sides and in the media (journalists are not what they used to be - they will print whatever politicians tell them - a lot of journalists also have unhealthy political prejudices). In fact I do have some good friends in Wallonia and they are mostly very friendly people. Wallonia is also a very beautiful country, both culturally and geographically. It is just a very different culture. An example of the cultural divide is that almost nobody in Wallonia knows anything about the Flemish culture, who is famous in Flanders or even who the Flemish politicians are, except when that politician made a Walloon-unfriendly comment. Same is true for the Flemish. Neither sides watch each others TV channels. The Flemish actually know a lot more about the Netherlands (and vice versa) and its culture than about Wallonia. Same is probably true for Wallonia that looks more to France and vice versa.
Unfortunately, the foreign press seems to be prejudiced in favor of the Walloons (who like to paint themselves as the underdog - which is hard to warrant when you constitute 40% of the population but get 50% of the vote). The reason for this is that these stories are covered by the international press core that resides Brussels to cover the European Union and NATO. The conflict between Flemish and Walloons for them is just a side-story to substitute the lack of real news. The Walloon politicians know this and make very clever use of it (better than the Flemish). The foreign press is also much more likely to speak French then they are to speak Dutch. So they pick out stories from the local (French) media, but since they are more likely to know French than Dutch, they get a one-sided picture. The Flemish suck at their PR.
So is it not better for Belgium to split up and have Flanders rejoin the Netherlands and Wallonia to join France ?
It might, but not necessarily. I personally am not advocating a split of the country per se, but I am not opposed to it either. Several options are possible:
(1) confederation of Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia under the name of Belgium, which would keep the monarchy in place
(2) Flanders joins the Netherlands and Wallonia joins France
(3) Flanders becomes independent
In case of a split, the hot topic remains who 'gets' Brussels. Neither Flanders or Wallonia want to give up Brussels, which houses the European Union and NATO, and is considered the capital center of Europe. The Flemish government houses its parliament in Brussels (although Brussels is not part of Flemish community). A lot of government agencies have their seat in Brussels. So nobody really wants to give up the prestigious Brussels. Brussels was historically a Dutch speaking city but become predominately French speaking. But the French speakers in Brussels do not necessarily have their roots in Wallonia either. Most of them are immigrants and European guest workers for the European Union and the many international corporations. Culturally Brussels people would probably prefer to associate themselves with Wallonia because of the common language, but economically, Brussels would be better of to be associated with more prosperous Flanders (BTW, if ever Brussels would fall under Flemish jurisdiction, that will NOT mean that Brussels becomes uni lingual Dutch). An option is to make Brussels somewhat independent from both Flanders and Wallonia and make it a 'European territory'. That is probably infeasible, as Europe has nothing comparable to rule a territory directly. European law is geared toward giving guidelines and the legal framework for national laws to abide by, but can not be used as a law in itself. Europe does not have what it takes to 'run' a territory by itself. EU members will also not be happy to have to fund the government of a territory that is not theirs.
As long as both sided keep agreeing with the compromises, option (1) is what it currently is heading to, as long as the current major political parties remain in power. There are various entities that try push it to the other options, but these are mostly 'extreme' political parties which are not in power or outsiders. They are currently not taken very serious but they do dominate the media, so it might look like the other options are taking place. At the time of writing, the political negotiations on splitting Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde voting district (a very hot potato) are still going on. If ever those negotiations fail completely, all bets are off.
But what would happen if Belgium would split ? There is a precedent. Czechoslovakia split in 1993 to become Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Many proponents of a split refer to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as a model for a non-violent solution. One of the questions is if either party is interested in pursuing the role of Belgium as a state. If neither regions want to hold on the 'old Belgium', then I guess the King is out of a job. My guess is that Flanders not interested at all to take over the title of the Belgian State. Perhaps Wallonia will if they do not join France instead. If a region wants to continue independently and does not want to succeed Belgium, they will have to temporarily leave the UN and EU and rejoin under their new identity. The new region will likely be under pressure to abide by international treaties ratified by Belgium. Other questions will be whether dual citizenship will be allowed, how the Belgian assets and debts will be divided. Presumably both regions will adopt the Belgian law as it stands on the day of the split and pursue their own courses from then on. A lot of the government assets have already been divided over the last decades, as more and more responsibilities shifted from the federal level to the regions.
One option (2) is for Flanders to rejoin the Netherlands to form a 'Greater Netherlands'. As both Flanders and the Netherlands have similar culture, the same language, and were united at various stages in history. But Dutch and Flemish are not siblings, more like close cousins. There used to be a big difference because Flanders was deeply Roman-Catholic against the Protestant Dutch, but that is not a significant issue any more. Both cultures are similar, in today's world, where the media is dominated by global pop culture, the significance diminishes. Dutch-language artists are already known across the border. The benefit of joining both regions is an increased number of seats in European parliament. Holland has about 16 million people (which puts it on the 8th place in Europe, after Romania with 22 million). Flanders has about 6 million. When joined, that would end up around 24 million, which boost the 'Greater Netherlands' one position to 7th place, but still after Poland with 38 million. Depending on which poll you believe, it isn't even that unthinkable that people on both sides would favor a unification. But there are some political and economic implications. The main reason for the Belgian Revolution was under representation. Will Flanders get a fair representation on the federal level? Currently, Flanders represents 60% of Belgium, but they have only 50% of the Belgian vote, but when joining the Netherlands, they will represent 6/24th of the population. The River the Scheldt, which is the main access to the Antwerp harbor in Flanders, runs through the Netherlands. It has been blockaded several times in history by the Dutch, indicating the strong competition it forms against the Dutch harbors of Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Once they control Flemish interests, will the Greater Netherlands' government give it sufficient economic attention and resources? E.g. the Scheldt on the Dutch side needs to be sufficiently dredged to allow sea traffic to reach Antwerp harbor. These works are mostly a burden for the Dutch and beneficial to the Flemish. Flemish politicians have gotten used to playing dominant roles in Belgian politics since WWII. What is going to happen if they have to compete with established Dutch politicians and adopt/learn a completely new legislation? What is going to happen to the existing Flemish laws? Are they going to be replaced by the Dutch laws? Are all the road signs going to be replaced? Are the taxes going to change? Is the Belgian railroad systems going to be replaced by the Dutch? Same for the military. Is the new government going to continue to fund the Flemish national TV? Are the Flemish (who are already not too fond of the Belgian monarchy) going to accept the Dutch Royals as their head-of-state? Flanders is doing pretty good on the economical side, but Belgium still has a huge public debt (80%) versus 43% in the Netherlands. How much of that is going to remain attached to Flanders after a split-up? Many questions for sure.
Does Flanders really need to join another country? Historically, it would probably have done good culturally, having been part of a big Dutch cultural block, in which people did not have to fight to preserve their language, and instead were allowed to develop it further. The Flemish always felt somewhat insecure about their culture, as they have not been allowed to practice it for over a 100 years. But Flanders has gotten over that, and developed its own culture (admittedly, which is now being superseded by an international pop culture). Many argue that Flanders will be too small to be independent. There are about 6 million Flemish people. When you look at the list of European Union countries, Flanders will drop from the 10th place (as part of Belgium) to the 16th place (out of 27 member states) as an independent Flanders (after Bulgaria, but before countries like Denmark, Finland, Ireland). On the world-level, we will drop from the 76th position to 107th position (out of 223 countries worldwide). Economically, Belgium hovers around the 20th place for GDP internationally, on the 13th place for per-capita GDP the 9th place in the EU for absolute GDP and the 11th place in the EU for per capita GDP. Given that Flanders' economy is better than that of Wallonia, splitting will lower Flanders in absolute ranking internationally and in the EU for the absolute GDP, but it will increase the per capita GDP. I would suspect it to approach that of the Netherlands on most accounts. So Flanders will hardly become an insignificant spec on the world map.
Flemish Culture
Flanders thrived in the middle ages (Dutch Golden Age) and was the business center of Western Europe. After the French Revolution (end of the 1700's) and under Napoleon (early 1800's) the Flemish region became dominated by the French. Flemish culture was 'discouraged' and Flanders fell back to an agricultural society.
The Dutch Language spoken in Flanders is governed by a common organization (Dutch Language Union) between Flanders and the Netherlands. The spoken Dutch can be easily discerned between Flemish and Dutch speakers, but the written Dutch is identical between both regions. Only the use of certain words that are more prevalent on either side will reveal the author's nationality.
Historically, the Flemish painters are world renowned. Some of the periods are: Flemish painting, early Gothic, Renaissance, Northern Renaissance, Baroque.
Rubens
Ghent Altar Piece
Peasants wedding
Het Steen
Literature in the Low Countries started in medieval times, and thrived in the Renaissance. Because of the cultural suppression of the Flemish by the French, Dutch literature suffered in Flanders. For long, Dutch literature was mostly continued by the Netherlands. After the Belgian independence in 1830, Flemish literature
branched off from the Netherlands and suffered from the French 'discouragement of the Dutch language'. Literature from the Netherlands was still much appreciated in Flanders but the Flemish cultural struggle gave Flemish Literature its own 'style'.
Historically the music styles from the low countries was much less region-bound. There was much overlap between Flemish and French music (Franco-Flemish school), or even European (Renaissance music). Belgium has a rich history in music. Foreign music has always been popular, but Belgium has also had some internationally successful artists, but mostly from Francophone artists, since French is much more internationally spread than Dutch.
Here are a couple internationally known Belgian musicians:
Adamo
Jacques brel and Bobbejaan Schoepen
Helmut Lotti
Toots Tielemans
Axelle Red
Here is a link about the Education system in Flanders.
Here you can find more about current day Flemish culture.
Internationally, Flanders became known by the WWI-era poem: 'In Flanders Fields'.
Belgium used to have a two-channel national broadcast TV network called BRT (Belgische Radio & Televisie). With the division of the country in language groups, this organization was split in their respective language constituents: VRT for the Flemish side and RTBF. In 1989, the first Flemish commercial TV station VTM started broadcasting. Now several Flemish based commercial networks are active. Due to the small geographic area, cable TV is very predominant in Flanders. Next to the Belgian national and commerical TV stations, most European TV stations, CNN, MTV, ... are available throughout Flanders: TV channels available in Flanders, list of Belgian TV stations.
Belgian cinema has never been a big hit internationally, especially Flemish movies (because of the Dutch language). The Walloon movie industry is a lot more successful internationally. here are a couple of links:
- movies from Belgium (as reviewed by New York Times)
- list of Dutch-language films
- Belgian submissions to Oscars
Belgium and Flanders in Foreign films:
Since significant parts of WWI and WWII (especially the Battle of the Bulge)
were waged in Belgium, many films about these battles are situated in Belgium (e.g. Battle of the Bulge, Patton, parts of Band of Brothers).
Steven Spielberg is working on the 3D animated movie: The adventures of TinTin - secret of the unicorn, based on the character TinTin by Herge.
Several international movies about Father Damian have been made over the years:- Molokai, the story of Father Damian- Father Damien: Leper PriestOther movies:
- Double Team by Jean-Claude Van Damme (Belgian-born international action movie star)
- JCVD
- L'Enfant
- Passchendaele (about WWI)- True North
- Waterloo
- If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium
Belgian Science & Exploration
Here are a couple of links about science & technology (current state of science & technology, Technology in the Renaissance).
Belgium has a rich history in Antarctic exploration.
Here is a website on current day polar expeditions.
Belgium also built the first zero-emission antarctic research station "Princess Elisabeth"
The Belgian Antarctic Expedition between 1897 and 1899 was the first expedition to stay during the winter in Antarctica.
This mission was led by explorer Adrien de Gerlache. The Gerlache Strait was named after him.Other explorers were:
- Alexandra David-Neel: visited Tibet in 1924.
- Max Cosyns: assistant to Auguste Picard, participated in balloon flights in the stratosphere, deep diving with the FRNS-2 bathyscaphe, and speleology.
- Dixie Dansercoer: crossed the Arctic Arc, Antarctica- Dirk Frimout: first Belgian astronaut
- Frank De Winne: ESA astronaut
- Wim Verstraeten: team member on Breitling Orbiter II's attempt to circumnavigate the world
Noteworthy scientists:
Luc Steels: AI, former collaborator with Rodney brooks
Pieter Abbeel: robotics
Pattie Maes: software agents
Ingrid Daubecies: wavelets
Visiting Belgium
Belgium is a very beautiful place to visit. Very rich in culture, history and nature. Both in Flanders and Wallonia, both are very different places.
Flemish cities:
- Antwerp, Brussels, Bruge (virtual Bruge), Ghent, Ostend, De Panne, Leuven, Kortrijk
Walloon cities:
Liege, Dinant, Bastogne, Spa, Bouillon, Namur, Durbuy
Historic and cultural places to visit:
Nature reserves:
Kamthoutse Heide, het Zwin, Ardennes, De Hoge Rielen, Rivierenhof, Nationaal Park Hoge Kempen, Vallei van de Zwarte Beek, Zonienewoud, IJzermonding, De Westhoek, Hoge Venen,
Zoo's:
general tourism sites:
Walloon tourism, Flemish tourism, visit Flanders, visit Belgium, Belgian Tourist Office Brussels/Wallonia, Welcome to Belgium, Belgium cities, Ardennes-Info,
Economics
The following is a good overview of the Belgian economy in general: Belgian economy, US Embassy link to Belgian companies
The Belgian stock market index is BEL-20.
Belgian is internationally best known for its: chocolate, beer, cheese, and waffles.
There is a misconception that those are the only things Belgium produces. There are a fair number of internationally renowned companies with roots in Belgium. These companies might be known to people, but not knowing these are Belgian companies. Here are some better know Belgian companies:
- Agfa Gevaert, BARCO, Bekaert, Godiva, InBev, Innogenetics, IMEC, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Solvay, Umicore, VanHool, Jonkheere, FN Herstal, Melexis, Beaulieu International, DOMO group, Gillet, Green Propulsion, Mutoh, Jan de Nul, Plant Genetic Systems, Spa Mineral water, NETLOG, Petrofina, Societe General de Belgique
There are also many domestic companies and subsidiaries of almost all international companies with a presence in Europe. Most have their headquarters in Brussels area.
Major car manufacturers all have production facilites in Belgium:
- Opel, Volvo, Ford, BMW, DAF, VW, Audi
In the beginning of the 1900's, Belgium also had its own car brands (most originated in Wallonia because the Belgian economy in the early 1900's was dominated by the Francophones):
- Metalurgique, ADK, Alatac, ALP, Antoine, APAL, Astra 1930, Auto-Mixte, Excelsior, De Wandre, Delecroix, Edran, Flaid, Ford of Europe, Imperia, Jeecy-Vea, Juwel, Meeuwsen, Minerva, Nagant, Pieper, Pipe, Ranger, Springuel, Vivinus,
Domestic Politics
Belgian politics is way to complicated for Earthlings to comprehend. Due to the century-old political tensions between the Dutch and French language groups. Belgian politicians are the grand masters of compromise, resulting in the most exceptions for every law passed. Do not try to comprehend Belgian politics, your head is guaranteed to hurt.
Belgian foods
I have never met anyone, that has visited Belgium, that has complained about Belgian food. Belgium is mostly known for its French Fries and Moules-Frites. But Belgian cuisine has much more to offer. Here are a couple noteworthy specialties: Belgian Endive, Smoked Ham, Stoemp, Suikerbonen, Waterzooi, Carbonade, Waffles, Wine,
In the news
Herman Van Rompuy - First European President
British Euro parliamentarian, Nigel Farage, attacked the first European President Herman Van Rompuy, calling him having the '"charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk"', and in the same time called Belgium a "non-country". I do not see the relevance of that last comment. What is he trying to say: "you don't have the right to be president because you do not even come from a real country?".
To me this seems to be a misguided attempt to bring up the rising unhappiness of Brits against the way Europe is going, and a cheap trick to get himself a shot at a seat in Buckingham. This behavior of insulting your political adversaries with no other purpose than to score with the voters in the local pub, might be common in the UK, it is not in the rest of Europe. Confrontation can be hard and downplaying the political foe's in jest is very common, insulting them in public about personal treats with no bear on the discussion at hand is plain rude. It is not done. I have no problem with the British resentment against Europe. But they have to be consistent: in or out, but do not stay in Europe with the sole purpose of holding everything back. Get a life.
This reminds me of another 'incident' where one of our major politicians, Frank Vandenbroucke took a sabbatical to finish his PhD in Social studies In Oxford. At that time, he was visited by a camera crew on campus. They also ended up briefly interviewing his PhD mentor and asked him whether he knew who his student was. He replied that he got the impression Frank was involved in some kind of politics on the main land but had no idea about the political caliber of Frank. I don't know where they got this dude. I presume they assign intelligent people on mentoring PhD students. Like people that actually know a thing or two of their field. In this case that would be a sociology professor that I would expect to know a major Socialist vice prime minister of your closest neighboring country. But no. As usually I am expecting way too much of this.
Capital punishment was formerly abolished in 1996, but has not been applied in 1950 for war crimes during WWII.
serial killers: Mark Dutroux, Andras Pandy, Michel Fourniret
notable crimes: nursery attack, Nijvel gang (Bende van Nijvel),
killing of Joe Van Holsbeek,
racially-motivated killing spree by: Hans van Themsche,
assassinations of politicians Andre Cools and Julien Lahaut, and veterinarian Karel Van Noppen,
kidnapping of former Belgian Prime Minister Paul Vanden Boeynants by gangster Patrick Haemers
political scandals: Agusta, Dioxin affair, UNIOP
career criminals: Kapllan Murat, Freddy Horion
Here is a BBC Timewatch documentary from 1992 on the secret NATO GLADIO network, which was linked to the Nijvel gang shootings:
Belgian military
Belgium was never known for its big military achievements because it never became a big power. Due to the central location of Belgium in Europe, and no natural borders to keep invaders out, it was always part of some European territory throughout time. It that capacity, up until WWII, very few generations in Belgium have not seen an invading army pass by, wage a battle nearby or be drafted in someone army to go fight on some godforsaken battlefield. The Belgian territory has been the theater of many battles and wars. Here are some (not all) links to some documented battles and wars:
Gallic Wars, Battle of Ambleve, Battle of Leuven, Battle of the Golden Spurs, Mad War, Armagnac-Burgundian War, Hundred year War, Hook and Cod Wars, Thirty Year War, Eighty Year War, Battle of Turnhout, Battle of Niewpoort, War of Devolution, Franco Dutch War, War of the Reunions, Nine Year War, War of the Spanish Succession, Anglo Dutch War, War of the Quadruple allegiance, War of Austrian Succession, Barrier Treaty, Battle of Turnhout (1789), Brabant Revolt, French Revolutionary Wars, Peasants War, Battle of Quattre-Bras, Battle of Wavre, Battle of Waterloo, Belgian Revolution, World War I, World War II
Godfrey of Bouillon, one of the first Crusaders to the Holy Land.
The Battle of the Golden Spurs is remembered in Flanders during the Flemish National day. That battle symbolized the conflict with French aristocratic rule and their defeat by the Flemish peasants.
After the French Revolution, most men between 20 and 25 were conscripted in the French army to go fight in the Revolutionary wars. This resulted in an unsuccessful uprising called the Peasant War.
Some 17,000 troops form the Low Countries found themselves fighting for Wellington in the Battle of Waterloo.
This is an article in Dutch about the Belgian battles during WWI. (I could not find much about the Belgian military history of WWI in English. Most of it describes British, Canadian and US involvement).
This is a link to an article in Dutch about the Belgian participation in WWII.
Here is a link to a database of Belgian military personnel killed in military operations since 1960.
There is this old joke that Belgians get asked: "Can you name me 10 famous Belgians?", implying that our country is so obscure, nobody knows anything about it, and that we have not achieved anything and produced no famous people. The joke itself is pretty harmless, was it not for the fact that it is only the British that abuse it. All other nationalities are polite enough to only use that joke with people they are close enough with . I have no problem with people from Malaysia or Nicaragua or Botswana to not know anything about Belgium, let alone be able to name anyone famous. To be honest, I don't know that much about their countries either. But I find it hard to accept that Brits don't know anything about their neighboring countries. My answer usually is that: "Yes, I can name 10 famous Belgians. In fact I can also name 10 famous French, Dutch, Germans and Brits". Then I ask them if they can name any famous people from their neighboring countries, especially the ones closest to them. They usually can not. To me, that says more about British ignorance than it does about Belgium. The fact that they don't know any Belgians simply means they do give a f*&#. Just for clarity, you can find a list of Belgians here. I dare you to not find at least 10 that you recognize.
This 'Famous Belgians' joke and other 'criticisms' many Brits have of Belgium are voiced in this article in their populist Sun. Their take on Charleroi being ugly, ... OK, we have one ugly city. Ever been to any major UK city? They are correct however about Belgium's shameful management of it's colony the Congo (in Flanders defense, colonial management was almost exclusively dominated by Francophone Belgium as most of the economy only until recent decades). But they conveniently forget to mention that it was the Brit/Welshman Stanley that helped establish that rule and was instrumental in providing King Leopold II the control over Congo Free State. But they were not more brutal than any other colonial power in the 1800's, least not the British Colonial Empire. Their remark about the Belgian being a joke, I will remember that the next time I see drunken British hooligans wreak havoc in the streets of Antwerp or Brussels again.