Belgium to break up?

And who gets Brussels?

bagkitty wrote:

And who gets Brussels?

Surely you mean Bruxelles, non?

I thought that was one of the problems with breaking up- that since the capital region is so thoroughly mixed, that neither side can expect to get the whole city.

"We are in each other's face..."

This more-or-less sums it up. The Czechs and Slovaks had an amicable divorce. And this was a good thing. Belgium wasn't a democratic creation, nor was Canada-Quebec. Different people get along well...just not in the same house. Nation states exist, because people prefer ethno-linguistically coherent states, where people make laws based on cultural customs, and interact in their own language. And this is the fatal flaw with multiculturalism. The problems in the U.S. (Arizona, etc.) between Anglos and Hispanics are due to interlinguistic friction (there is no Hispanic 'race'). Conflicts like the Reasonable Accomodation issue (Muslims, Chassidim) boil down to insurmountable differences over serious, non-negotiable issues like sexual relations and gender equality. Even arranged marriages (Hindu) and polygamy (Muslim) are running into conflict with Canadian cultural norms, with immigration authorities (these arrangements aren't recognized as legitimate...nor should they be).

Do you want to have to speak another language fluently in order to function in your own country? Would you seriously like to legalize polygamy and forced marriages, gender-segregate swimming pools, impose 'modest' dress codes, and ban alcohol and pork? Me neither. 'Multicultural' doesn't just mean tasty foods and nice music--there are also a host of grossly-incompatible social norms, including some that 'progressive' people have to admit are annoying at best (Muslim cabbies refusing to admit dogs into their cars) and pretty repugnant at worst (Aqsa Parvez murdered for refusing to wear a hijab). The language issue is also a big problem, even between otherwise ethno-culturally similar people (Canada-Quebec, Flemmish-Walloon, Anglo-Hispanic). Very few people are 'racist', but different cultures inevitably clash over a million different fundamental incompatibilities. This is why Bill 101 was so hugely popular in Quebec, and why the niqab ban enjoys overwhelming support in both Quebec (>90%) and Anglo-Canada (>80%).

 'footsoldiers' can still defeat 'Knights'

Agent666 wrote:

Very few people are 'racist', but different cultures inevitably clash over a million different fundamental incompatibilities. This is why Bill 101 was so hugely popular in Quebec, and why the niqab ban enjoys overwhelming support in both Quebec (>90%) and Anglo-Canada (>80%).

You need to educate yourself about racism. And the difference with 'ethno-cultural conflict'.

Good place to start:

Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression 101...... 2.0

I can only vouch for my short stay in Belgium about the language difficulties in that country.

First, while the Dutch are estimated to be more numerous than the French, the French-Belgians had more prestige historically.  The problem now is that the Dutch-Belgians are not only more numerous (est 60% Dutch-40% French), they are economically wealthier than the French-Belgians.  The Dutch do not want to be subsidizing the French.  It's similar to the some Canadians complaining about Quebec being subsidized by the rest of Canada.

Next, in Belgium, there are linguistic regions and region regions.  The two do not naturally overlap.  These regions are divided between a Dutch north, French south, and officially bilingual, but culturally French Brussels.  In Belgium, there is no sense of trans-bilingualism of government services that one would find officially in Canada.  In Belgium, do not expect to receive services in French in northern Belgium unless a sympathetic Dutch-Belgian official wishes to speak in French.  The Dutch-Belgians should expect less in the south.  However, I do remember taking a ferry from the Dutch-Belgian port of Oostende to Dover, England.  There were bilingual services on the ferry--in Dutch and English.

Like Canada, the Belgians have a problem designing a parliament that will recognize both the population realities and the different linguisitic groups (the Dutch, French, and small German minority).  It's much easier to devolve government to the local level.

Finally, it would be fairly easy to divide Belgium into two parts except around Brussels.  While the Brussels regions could go to the French side, there would be disputes about a southern corridor between Brussels and the French Wallonia.  The official region surrounding Brussels belongs to the Dutch Flanders even though quite a few French speaking inhabitants live just south of Brussels in the official Dutch region.  Would Brussels become an enclave or would it bet contiguous with Wallonia?

oops.

Maysie--by 'sexual relations', I don't just mean what people do between the sheets. Everything from hand-shaking, to what gender of doctor you have, to whether-or-not a man will take orders from a female boss are issues. And you can't pretend that this isn't a serious problem between Western, liberal-pluralistic culture (yours) and conservative, religious, non-gender equal cultures (Salafi Islam, Chassidic Judaism, conservative Sikh, ultra-consevative LDS spinter sects).

Quebec is a close parallel to what's going on in Belgium. In both Belgium and Canada, language (English/French, French/Flemmish) are the essential divide. The difference is that Quebec and the rest of Canada have learned the art of 'staying out of each other's hair': Quebec is a defacto sovereign nation, with its own immigration policy, pension, blood supply and Federal recognition of nationhood status. Bill 101 has solidified the status of French in the province. People like to be masters in their own houses. This is most of what the separatists wanted, anyhow, so separation isn't the burning issue it is in Belgium. However, the EU has been encroaching on national sovereignty, which is also inflaming the issue, there.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the majority of Hispanic people in the U.S. (citizens and otherwise) are 'White Hispanic'. Thus, the Latino-Anglo issue is a linguistic conflict. You see this with ENGLISH ONLY! sign controversies in the U.S. Anglo and Hispanic-Americans are indistinguishable, except for language preference (just like Flemmish and Walloons, Canadians and Quebecois, etc.). I recall reading an interview with Jessica Alba: she was seated at an awards show with her father (a Tejano), next to George Lopez. When Lopez began speaking Spanish to Alba's father, he replied "sorry--I don't speak MEXICAN." (As Jessica Alba put it, she "turned purple" with embarassment.) An interesting twist on the linguistic issue was found in the Serbo-Croatian conflict. True, Serbs are Orthodox and Croats Catholic. However, they write their (common) language in different alphabets (Cyrillic vs Latin). Even the orthographic rules are identical, just the letter shapes are different. Among other things, having to label street signs in different scripts was enough of an irritant to start a war.

Are Charlie Sheen and Alexis Bledel "identifiable as Hispanics"? Didn't think so. Hispanics from Central America are viciously hounded by Mexican immigration authorities, who run them out of the country. There, as in Arizona, legal residency and citizenship has nothing to do with 'race'..., or--in the case of Mexico--ethno-linguistic identity. The term 'race' is incorrectly used on anything from linguistic, to religious differences.

'Race' and language are two different things. There are no 'racial' differences between Walloons and Flemmish, but there IS an ethno-linguistic identity. The same goes for Anglo vs Quebecois differences. Sometimes, the difference is even more subtle--and artificial. There is no such a thing as a 'Macedonian' nation, for example. Macedonians are, essentially, Bulgarians. However, Tito's regime forced the 'Macedonians' (subjects of the old Serbian Empire) to adopt a Serbian-type orthography, rather than the Bulgarian version of Cyrillic. The commies were good at the divide-and-conquer approach to ethno-linguistic relations. After fears of pan-Turanian movements, the Soviet government scrapped the Common Latin Turkic Alphabet and forced each Turkic republic to adopt radically different Cyrillic scripts for each 'language'.

Agent666, stay out of this thread. 

NDPP wrote:

"a country created by the British to annoy the French"

said De Gaulle ...

and being artificial to some degree, Belgium has never really grown coherently the way the Swiss Confederation has -- organically and by clear popular will, despite regional and linguistic divides;

people roll their eyes when I say this, but I put Quebec/Canada in the latter, Swiss category: New France/Lower Canada was the basic building block of European-settled "Canada" and Confederation, and its symbols (maple leaf, beaver) became Canadian ones;

older French Canadians will often say: "We founded Canada", and there is a strong stream of electoral federalists, always underestimated by the media, who hold this viscerally

anyway, if Belgium splits, Czechoslovakia is the model to follow: a referendum and a midnight split. End of story.

you learn something every day ... I thought there was a vote in 1992

 anyway, going back further, how did Belgium itself become independent of the Netherlands?

Wikipedia sez:

The Belgian Revolution was the conflict which led to the secession of the Southern provinces from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and established an independent Kingdom of Belgium.

Much of the population of the south were Roman Catholic, French-speaking, or liberals who regarded King William I's rule as despotic. There were high levels of unemployment and industrial unrest among the working classes

On 25 August 1830 riots erupted in Brussels and shops were looted. Theatergoers who had just watched La muette de Portici at the Monnaie theater house, joined the uproar and windows were smashed. Uprisings followed elsewhere in the country. Factories were occupied and machinery destroyed. Order was restored briefly after William committed troops to the Southern Provinces but rioting continued and leadership was seized by more radical elements, who started talking of secession

A battle took place in Brussels. Cannons were fired in the Warande Park. Dutch troops were eventually forced to withdraw because of mass desertion of recruits from the Southern Provinces, while the States-General in Brussels voted in favour of secession and declared independence. In the aftermath, a National Congress was assembled and William refrained from future military action and appealed to the Great Powers. The resulting London Conference of major European powers recognized Belgian independence.

Following the installation of Leopold I as "King of the Belgians" in 1831, King William made a belated military attempt to reconquer Belgium and restore his position through a military campaign. This Ten Days Campaign failed as a result of French military intervention. Not until 1839 did the Dutch accept the decision of the London conference and Belgian independence by signing the Treaty of London.