02 Dec 07
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2220544,00.html
Belgium's chances of surviving as a single country suffered a significant blow last night when the man tipped to be the next Prime Minister abandoned almost six months of bad-tempered wrangling over a new government and threw in the towel.
Yves Leterme, the Flemish Christian Democrat leader who emerged strongest from general elections in June, went to the royal palace in Brussels to tell King Albert he had had enough.
The King accepted Leterme's resignation, but left open the key question of what happens next in the effort to secure a consensus between the country's bitterly divided Dutch-speaking Flemish and francophone Walloon communities.
here's the multi-culti stuff
The obscure dispute highlighted the absolute linguistic divide that reigns in Belgium outside Brussels, a French-speaking capital that bestrides the divide between the two communities but which is a Flemish city.
...................
Dutch and French speakers do not communicate with one another. They watch different TV stations, read different newspapers and send their children to different schools and universities. There are no national political parties. Leterme is a Christian Democrat but his proposals were rejected by Christian Democrats from the other side of the linguistic divide.
Through almost six months of negotiations, the Flemish side has insisted on further concessions to ethnic and linguistic autonomy as the price for forming a common government, concessions that further down the road will hasten the break-up of the country.
It's my position that multi-culty is the problem here. Instead of the people wanting to be Belguimites, they want their own "identities".
02 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkAnd what's wrong with that? Let them split up if they want to, I say. It work well enough for the former Czechoslovakia. The Czechs and Slovaks just went their separate ways and nobody was the worse off for it.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2220544,00.html
Belgium's chances of surviving as a single country suffered a significant blow last night when the man tipped to be the next Prime Minister abandoned almost six months of bad-tempered wrangling over a new government and threw in the towel.
Yves Leterme, the Flemish Christian Democrat leader who e here. Instead of the people wanting to be Belguimites, they want their own "identities".
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThat's if you see it as a problem. The language is a symptom, not a cause. This has been going on for decades. My dad is flemish, his parents emigrated from Belgium to Ireland in the early 70's and at the time the language was Flemish, a dialect of Dutch. After my grandparents left, the official language was changed to Dutch and within a single generation, the language has changed completely. When my dad returns to Belgium, speaking the same flemish he spoke growing up, the language is different enough that the local Flemish prefer speaking English.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2220544,00.html
Belgium's chances of surviving as a single country suffered a significant blow last night when the man tipped to be the next Prime Minister abandoned almost six months of bad-tempered wrangling over a new government and threw in the towel.
Yves Leterme, the Flemish Christian Democrat leader who e ...[text shortened]... here. Instead of the people wanting to be Belguimites, they want their own "identities".
The history goes back to WWII when French soldiers settled in eastern Belgium changing the language and culture of the place. This has been seen by the flemish as a virtual colonisation. Further to all that there is the economic point, which is arguably the greater point in the whole issue. The well educated, commercially profitable west (Flemish) is in effect supporting the industrial and generally poor east (Waloon/French).
There's no attempt at multi-culturalism, it's seen as a binary problem, and the Flemish would rather cut themselves off from the French side of Belgium. Basically, they hate eachother, but it's not a cultural thing. The Flemish like to speak french, in France. It's seen as sophisticated and fashionable. But they won't do so as easily if it's a french speaking waloon.
Certainly for all of my flemish family it's a case of taxes going to support a load of blow-in wasters. Thoguh annexing with Holland would be easier for them, that's not what they want either.
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonI understand that Belguim is a compilation.
That's if you see it as a problem. The language is a symptom, not a cause. This has been going on for decades. My dad is flemish, his parents emigrated from Belgium to Ireland in the early 70's and at the time the language was Flemish, a dialect of Dutch. After my grandparents left, the official language was changed to Dutch and within a single generation, t ...[text shortened]... oguh annexing with Holland would be easier for them, that's not what they want either.
Perhaps you've missed the bigger picture. The bigger picture here is that it highlights the difficulties of keeping such diverse cultures together in one nation.
Extending this to nations that aren't a a composite, like Belguim, is this a sign of what would happen to nations that aren't assembled pieces and are historically one culture, such as Canada, America or France if multi-culti goes far enough?
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkBelgium isn't a composite... it was quite happily one country and kingdom for centuries before the world wars came along. It's called the cockpit of europe for a reason.
I understand that Belguim is a compilation.
Perhaps you've missed the bigger picture. The bigger picture here is that it highlights the difficulties of keeping such diverse cultures together in one nation.
Extending this to nations that aren't a a composite, like Belguim, is this a sign of what would happen to nations that aren't assembled pieces and are historically one culture, such as Canada, America or France if multi-culti goes far enough?
I don't think multi-culti as you refer to it, is the cause, like I said. it's a particular issue between two particular parties. the Flemish part has a large immigrant population that gets on very well, and it also has integrated with anglophone culture excellenty, with virtually everyone you meet capable of speaking English fluently. Try that in France, or the waloon part of Belgium. This is an issue that is between two parties, not a flaw in multi-cultural integration.
02 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonOr in otherwords, an issue between two cultures not being able to remain together in one country.
Belgium isn't a composite... it was quite happily one country and kingdom for centuries before the world wars came along. It's called the cockpit of europe for a reason.
I don't think multi-culti as you refer to it, is the cause, like I said. it's a particular issue between two particular parties. the Flemish part has a large immigrant population that gets ...[text shortened]... ium. This is an issue that is between two parties, not a flaw in multi-cultural integration.
What happens when cultures in (insert nation here) get this diverse and powerful?
Edit: I see what your saying. Multi-culti is not the case because, as it's currently formed, they've always had the different cultures. I'm not argueing that. My question is, if such diverse and cultures are leading to the breakup of Belguim, can other nations end the same way if multi-culti goes far enough?
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkWell, arguably, if multi-culti goes far enough, the idea of the nation state stops existing. We become one globalised homogenous population. I don't see a problem with that, culture is overrated when it comes to nationalist lines. My country doesn't define my culture. Maybe that's because I'm quite multicultural myself, half belgian/Irish, living in France. Multiculturalism as I see it dissolves cultures, mixing them. If you ghettoise it, as has happened in belgium, parts of america, holland etc. then you have problems. If multi-culturalism is done, as it's meant to be is done(that is, mix the cultures and within a few generations they dissolve and parts of each conglomerate and enrich eachother with a common history and moral values), then no worries. If you draw a line int he sand and say "OTHER, you shall come no further!" then of course there's going to be problems, but I don't see that as multi-culturalism.
Or in otherwords, an issue between two cultures not being able to remain together in one country.
What happens when cultures in (insert nation here) get this diverse and powerful?
Edit: I see what your saying. Multi-culti is not the case because, as it's currently formed, they've always had the different cultures. I'm not argueing that. My question is, i ...[text shortened]... to the breakup of Belguim, can other nations end the same way if multi-culti goes far enough?
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by agryson"We become one globalised homogenous population."
Well, arguably, if multi-culti goes far enough, the idea of the nation state stops existing. We become one globalised homogenous population. I don't see a problem with that, culture is overrated when it comes to nationalist lines. My country doesn't define my culture. Maybe that's because I'm quite multicultural myself, half belgian/Irish, living in France. ...[text shortened]... then of course there's going to be problems, but I don't see that as multi-culturalism.
You're a smart man. Think about that statement for a second. Do you honestly think the current situation in Belguim "homogenous"?
Perhaps we define multiculturalism a little differently. I look at at cultures remaining their own culture, but living within the same nation as multiculturalism. To me, blending cdiverse ultures into one homogenous culture is the antithesis of multiculturalism. And to no small extent, how America, the U.K. and Canada etc. have gotten where they are today.
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkHmm, maybe it is my view of multiculturalism that's screwy, Belgium definitely ain't homogenous, which is why I said multi-culturalism wasn't the issue (a result of a screwy definition in all likelihood). I always figured multi-culturalism was the successful cohabitation of diverse cultures, which I view as only possible if they merge into one another, maintaining parts of the original identity but with each generation those parts being more of the whole. My dad, though from a belgian culture, is Irish, he has adapted to that culture, while maintaining some of his original culture. Me even less so, living here I adopt my new countries culture in many respects, but maintain some links to my old, becoming a blend of the two.
"We become one globalised homogenous population."
You're a smart man. Think about that statement for a second. Do you honestly think the current situation in Belguim "homogenous"?
Perhaps we define multiculturalism a little differently. I look at at cultures remaining their own culture, but living within the same nation as multiculturalism. To me, blendin ...[text shortened]... to no small extent, how America, the U.K. and Canada etc. have gotten where they are today.
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkWe had our civil war. Let them have theirs.
Or in otherwords, an issue between two cultures not being able to remain together in one country.
What happens when cultures in (insert nation here) get this diverse and powerful?
Edit: I see what your saying. Multi-culti is not the case because, as it's currently formed, they've always had the different cultures. I'm not argueing that. My question is, i ...[text shortened]... to the breakup of Belguim, can other nations end the same way if multi-culti goes far enough?
02 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkYou obviously can't comprehend that this statement is retarded:
Stick to rolling. You obviously can't follow the thread.
nations that aren't assembled pieces and are historically one culture, such...America
We are in fact the assembly of fifty states who have historically had diverse cultures.
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou seem to not understand the difference between states and cultures nor the unitfying ramifications of a common language. And, as always, you continue to display your utter inability to understand even the most basic tenets of your home nation.
You obviously can't comprehend that this statement is retarded:
[b]nations that aren't assembled pieces and are historically one culture, such...America
We are in fact the assembly of fifty states who have historically had diverse cultures.[/b]
You may have perhaps heard of America being called a melting pot. What people are talking about when they say that is our seperate cultures ability to "melt" together to create one unified culture.
What that means, is that different cultures come together and make an American culture. With being and American more important than being an Italian or a German.
In stoner terms, think of nations as a joint. You can't have a joint without both paper and dope. If you seperate the two, you no longer have a joint.
02 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkKind of like what's slowly happening here in Europe (I and many of my firends call ourselves European and share many things in common, culturally, even though the music is generally terrible), but what currently isn't happening in Belgium, though I contest that that is due mainly to economic reasons than cultural ones, even though culture is a small part of it from where I'm standing.
You seem to not understand the difference between states and cultures nor the unitfying ramifications of a common language. And, as always, you continue to display your utter inability to understand even the most basic tenets of your home nation.
You may have perhaps heard of America being called a melting pot. What people are talking about when they say tha ...[text shortened]... ave a joint without both paper and dope. If you seperate the two, you no longer have a joint.
02 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonGood observation on Europe. That's why we Americans tend to include many European nations and just say the word Europe instead of singling out nations individually.
Kind of like what's slowly happening here in Europe (I and many of my firends call ourselves European and share many things in common, culturally, even though the music is generally terrible), but what currently isn't happening in Belgium, though I contest that that is due mainly to economic reasons than cultural ones, even though culture is a small part of it from where I'm standing.
On Belguim, now we're getting into the economic ramifications of having distinctly seperate cultures. I would contend that economic disparity is generally, not always, a side effect of cultural differences.