An interesting proposal has surfaced to help resolve the intra-Belgian political stalemate between Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speakers, who prevail in Brussels and Wallonia: a couloir francophone (‘Francophone corridor’) that would link Wallonia to Brussels, thus ending the Belgian capital’s territorial isolation within Flanders.
Brussels is officially bilingual (Dutch and French) but is mainly French-speaking in practice. A ‘corridor’ would allow for territorial contiguity with Wallonia (officially French-speaking), thus facilitating the creation of a Brussels-Wallonia federation – a counterweight to the Flemish government, which already unites personal and territorial competences.*
The corridor would obviously have to be transferred from Flanders to Brussels (or Wallonia), possibly in exchange for a solution to the fiendishly complicated problem of B-H-V that would be favourable to the Flemish point of view.
B-H-V stands for Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde (in French) or Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde (in Dutch). It is an electoral district that covers both Brussels (officially bilingual) and part of Flemish Brabant (officially unilingual Dutch). Flemish political parties see B-H-V as an anachronism, as it allows French-speakers in that part of Flemish Brabant (ever more numerous, as Brussels expands) to vote for Francophone politicians (in Brussels), thus disincentivising them to integrate in Flanders and learn Dutch. All Flemish parties demand the split-up of B-H-V as a way of maintaining the territorial and linguistic integrity of Flanders.
Francophone political parties see B-H-V as an essential part of the ‘Belgian pact’, regard the proposals for its demise as an attempt to disenfranchise Francophones living in Flanders, have enlisted inspectors of the Council of Europe to find in their favour and fear that without B-H-V as a cornerstone, the split-up of Belgium would be one more step closer. Most Francophone parties would however consider splitting B-H-V in exchange for the territorial enlargement of Brussels with at least some of its mainly Francophone suburbs, and/or a territorial link to Wallonia.
The Francophone Brussels newspaper Le Soir last week published the outlines of a proposed corridor,supposedly on the table in current discussions behind closed doors aimed at resolving the ongoing crisis, that would provide a 2.5 km long link between Uccle (in Brussels) and Waterloo (in Wallonia) by transferring a narrow strip of the Zoniënwoud (Forêt de Soignes in French) from the Flemish to the Francophone side.
As with many things involving the language battles raging in Belgium, this proposal has a slightly surreal feel to it. The transfer of this nature reserve from Flanders to French-speaking Belgium would arguably change the linguistic status of its only permanent inhabitants from Dutch-speaking to French-speaking squirrels.
This map found here on this page of the Le Soir newspaper.
* presently, the Wallonian government has territorial competences in Wallonia only, and a Francophone government has personal competences concerning French-speakers in Brussels and Wallonia.
The Belgian situation is so complicated, but also so insignificant, that no one bothers to comment.
I was born and raised in Flanders; I consider myself European.
What is Flanders anyway… At least Belgium stands for something: surrealism, graphic novels, the art of compromise, beer and chocolate. Flanders? Nothing.
I live in Cambodia now. How about a(nother?) post about the Cambodia-Vietnam-Laos-Thailand border issues (Kampuchea Krom, Preah Vihear, etc.).
Comment by Tommickx — June 17, 2008 @ 4:20 am
This stupid idea reminds me of the Danzig corridor, proposed by Adolf Hitler…
Comment by Miguel — June 17, 2008 @ 5:38 am
It is correct that French is spoken by a large number of the people living in the Brussels area. Studies have shown however that even the French speaking Belgians in Brussels are a minority. The vast majority of the immigrants in Brussels (from Morroco, Turkey, …) choose to speak French. This is interesting because speaking Dutch would give them more economical opportunities. The employers in the suburban region around Brussels (in Flanders) have many difficulties in finding good candidates for their job openings. Apparantly the unemployed French speaking inhabitants of the Brussels region are not willing or not capable to learn Dutch and find a job a few kilometers outside the Brussels region.
Comment by Bruno Peeters — June 17, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Flanders stands for nothing? Huizinga and many other historians would disagree.
Comment by Kat — June 17, 2008 @ 8:06 am
French speaking people = unemployed
Dutch speaking people = ‘good’ job candidates
frightening to hear that.
Comment by stoter — June 17, 2008 @ 8:09 am
@ stoter : there is no profiling or discrimination against French speaking unemployed people. All Bruno Peeters tried to explain is that Belgian employers (regardless their location in Flanders, Brussels or Wallonia) need at least bilingual Dutch-French personnel to cater for the needs of Belgian customers. Monolingual candidaties don’t get hired, regardless of their mother tongue.
Meanwhile, we can see many unemployed French ‘monolinguals’ in Brussels while there is great demand for bilinguals or trilinguals (+ English). Why is this so ? Flemish people, although demographically a majority, have felt (and been treated as) a cultural minority for many decades. This resulted into an openness towards the world, realising that their culture is not the center of the universe.
Francophone Belgians have always relished the idea of belonging to a great world culture without feeling the need to accommodate people of other cultures or ‘lowering’ themselves into learning other languages.
In the 21st century Flemish people seem to be more adapted to functioning in a multicultural Europe, Francophone Belgians feel discriminated as soon as they see a street sign in Dutch or have to speak another language while travelling through Europe. For their sake, I hope they catch up soon…
Comment by Johan Van Loon — June 17, 2008 @ 9:04 am
I have to say I’m very impressed by the clarity with which you’ve explained the insane political complexity of Belgium. I rarely see anything of this quality on the subject of Belgium written in English.
Thanks!
Bart.
Comment by Bart Busschots — June 17, 2008 @ 10:33 am
@Bruno: People learn the language that is spoken around them (it’s a snowball effect), not to mention that many immigrants are likely to come from a country where French is a second language and Flemish or Dutch is not. Also keep in mind that these people are already bilingual and often have a rudimentary knowledge of Dutch, but actually mastering a language to the point that you can work with customers is a different thing entirely, and often a problem here, especially if there are few opportunities for practice (which is a structural problem I guess, and does not have a simple “snap your fingers” solution). By which I’m only trying to say that foreigners aren’t lazy, as you are implying.
@Johan: While I cannot completely disagree with you I must point out there are plenty of Flemish people who equally feel threatened if they see a street sign in French. I’m Flemish myself and personally I see a lot of people around me like you who seem to think all the problems originate on the other side of the language border. That is simply not true, there are two parties to every argument and your pet theory about Francophones being stuck in the 20th century can only explain so much (and IMHO breaks down with most of them quite rapidly, try passing by one of the French speaking universities sometime).
I’d posit a lot of Flanders is stuck in the 20th century as well. The overinflated attention the decidedly minor BHV problem is getting is only one example.
Comment by wds — June 17, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
This idea was never taken seriously because it doesn’t resolve anyones issues. The Francophones in the BHV would still feel disenfranchized and this corridor, a nature preserve, would be unable to effectively connect Brussels and Wallonia with the building of any infrastructure.
Comment by Ali — June 17, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
You are bound to draw many comments with this contribution. It’s nice to see the map we here so much silly talking about here in Belgium. But believe me: everyone thinks it is silly, both in Belgium and outside. It was not even uttered by politicians, but by sensation seeking newspapers (of which we sadly have a few on both sides). That did not stop politicians from commenting on it, of course. But again, who is still listening to them?
By the way, the existence of the BHV issue is not a “clean” political issue seeing that the constitutional court – which cannot be overruled in Belgium – denounced it many years ago. The current situation is hence unconstitutional. But no path to a better situation has been found yet.
In summary, the issues are largely overblown and are not so much about language or even money as about political self conservation. It is absolutely not worth stalling a government for. Sadly our political leaders don’t think that way. But believe me, 99% of the voters have stopped caring some time ago.
Comment by Wim — June 17, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
re comment 2:
The Danzig corridor (more commonly known in English as the Polish corridor) predated Hitler and its existence was in fact one of his grievances.
See Wikipedia “Polish Corridor”.
Comment by Dan Milton — June 17, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
I second Bart, #7.
I like this blog. Judging by the number of posts about Belgium over time, it’s a good candidate for providing material. A wealthy nation with rich-kid problems… But quite creative indeed, in good surrealism fashion.
Comment by Manuel — June 17, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
I third Bart!
I don’t think I have ever seen anything written in English that is so clear, concise and accurate about Belgian politics. And without being snarky and condescending.
Every country has its problems, but let’s not forget, my fellow Belgians, whether you are Flemish, Walloon or whatever, it’s still a pretty good place to live in.
Comment by Tsitsi — June 17, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Three things. First, isn’t German also an official language of Belgium. I mean, I would not ignore the Germans. They have a habit of getting annoyed and invading . . . That’s a joke, everyone.
Second, as the EU acts more like a Federal government is the pressure between the groups in Belgium increasing, or decreasing? It seems like it should decrease, but maps like this reflect pretty high tensions.
Third, Flanders doesn’t stand for anything? Well, Belgium is half Catholic Dutch, half French, created in large part to keep the French from being too close to England. If ever there was a country that didn’t stand for anything, that’s it. Sheesh.
Comment by David — June 17, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
At least they didn’t have ‘language police’ in Belgium the last time I checked (like they do in Quebec).
When I lived in the BeNeLux several years ago, the home of some friends there was broken into. The security company representative was a German the local police agent was Dutch. But they only spoke English to each other. There are compromises and then there is Esperanto I suppose…
Comment by Lloyd Bonafide — June 17, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
Speaking of BHV, could you get a map if IT (with linguistical overlays)? That would be a strange map in itself and worth discussing.
Comment by Lurker — June 17, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
I have a solution to the Belgium issue: use English for all official and business purposes. If I’m not mistaken most Belgians speak it quite well, and because it’s no one’s first language it won’t favor one side over the other.
Comment by Peter — June 18, 2008 @ 2:39 am
one more step closer.?
Ouch.
Comment by Nathan — June 18, 2008 @ 4:16 am
@ david:
First, the German speakers only add up to about 60,000 peaceful souls in the extreme east of the country and have never bothered anyone.
Second, the EU is very supportive of “regions” that do not constitute nation states. One might argue that the EU has contributed to local autonomy issues rather than supressed them.
Third, Flanders has been a recognised entity since the Middle Ages. On the other hand, Caesar wrote about the Belgians being the bravest of all the Gauls, so there’s a precedent for Belgium right there. Of course, you might argue that the Belgians of the time were not the same people as they are today, and you would be right. On the the other hand, medieval counties and duchies approximately corresponding to today’s Belgium were united in the Middle Ages under the rule of Burgundy. The regions composing the current Belgium have historical ties that predate the independent kingdom we now know by half a millennium. No-one in Flanders would agree with your descripton of them as the Catholic dutch, and hardly anyone in Wallonia would consider themselves to be French.
Comment by Tsitsi — June 18, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
@ Peter
Just because you speak a second or third language very well does not mean you want to use it in your own country all the time for all official purposes. That’s just not a tenable or even comfortable propositon. People want to feel at home in their own country. That’s why there are language rules and there’s a language border in Belgium. North of the border, all official business is conducted in dutch, and south of the border in French. So far so good. It’s the Brussels issue, and its environs, that’s the real problem.
Comment by Tsitsi — June 18, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Tsitsi,
Yes, yes, and yes. All three comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although number two does seem to me a simpler solution than separation, or a linguistic corridor. Everyone just sit tight until the regions operate directly with the EU.
As for number 3, I believe that the Roman reference to the tribes in the area was the basis for Belgium’s name. In other words, the Belgians consciously chose the association, rather than having “Belgium” reflect the continuity of the tribe in the region. Also, it’s fine if the people of Flanders would not consider themselves Catholic Dutchmen. However, they would have a lot of trouble explaining why they left the Protestant kingdom of Holland in the 1830s.
Comment by David — June 18, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Could someone please tell me: if Flemings speak dutch, does that mean they’re also Dutch or are they seperate people? And if Vallons speak French, does that mean they’re also French or are they a seperate people? Because language doesn’t determine ethnicity: 99% Irishmen speaks English and yet they’re not Englishmen.
Comment by Nationalist — June 18, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
@David,
You are forgetting that many of whom you call “Dutch” are in fact Flemish people who moved North. It just happened that most oppressors throughout the ages came from the south.
While we’re at it, we wouldn’t mind if you returned the “flemish” regions in the south of Netherlands. (For those who do not know it: those three provinces have VERY similar names to Belgian Flemish ones, and are historically related).
So take care who you call “Dutch”. A great many Dutch people do not like that term. And it certainly does not apply to anyone in Belgium, except for some happy immigrants.
Comment by Adhemar — June 18, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Adhemar,
Wait, the people who live in Amsterdam prefer “Flemish” to “Dutch?” For that matter, the people in Maastricht prefer “Flemish” to “Dutch.”
That was not my experience at all. They would prefer “Flemish” to “Hollander” too?
This is all too ridiculous. If the Flemish are this prickly, I don’t blame the Walloon/Frenchies for wanting to be protected from them. Sheesh. They should have just let France keep the Batavian Republic and be done with it.
Comment by David — June 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Luxembourgers speak French, German, and “Luxembourgish” (German dialect). Why doesn’t Luxembourg fall apart? What makes Belgium different?
East of the French speaking countries in Europe, more people are learning English and German as second and third languages (few learn French)……
Comment by ron — June 18, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
david
The Southern Netherlands did not break away from the North. They were both originally dominated by Spain. The North broke away over religious issues (the rise of Protestantism versus Catholic Spain), the South did not manage to shake off the Spanish yoke and therefore remained Catholic. Many Protestant Southerners at the time fled to the North.
I think what Adhemar is trying to say does not translate very well into English. I think he’s trying to say that many people in the Netherlands do not like to be referred to as “Hollanders” because that term refers to specific provinces within the Netherlands. I don’t think he’s implying that they would rather be called Flemish, but that they do prefer to be called “Nederlanders” rather than “Hollanders”.
I apologise if what I have said sounds prickly to you. I’m just trying to explain the history behind all this stuff.
Additionally, if the French had kept the Batavian republic, the current Netherlands woulv be somewhat smaller.
It’s a little funny to read how you perceive the Walloons to be in need of protection from the Flemish, but I guess that’s the impression abroad. In reality, they are very well capable of fighting their own battles. The sides are quite equally matched. And we will continue on our merry bickering way for a while to come.
Enjoy the spectacle!
Comment by Tsitsi — June 18, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
david
I misread your comment about the South splitting off from the North. I now see you were referring to the brief period referred to as the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, which existed from 1815 to 1830. Ironically for your argument, it is this kingdom that was an artificial construct, far more so than the currenct Belgium. It was imposed by the international powers at the Congress of Vienna after the defeat of Napoleon and had little to no support in what is now Belgium, witness its very short duration.
Comment by Tsitsi — June 18, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Tsitsi,
I won’t argue with a Belgian about Belgium. That would be stupid. I will say though that calling the original United Netherlands more of an artificial construct than a country that is 1/2 Catholic Flemish (Dutch speaking), and 1/2 French, with a German king seems kind of a stretch.
The Belgians, er, Flemings do have some mighty fine beer though.
Comment by David — June 18, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
@ Lloyd re #15
The so-called “language police” is not a police, rather it refers to the laws on commercial signage in Quebec. The laws changed over time since 1977, but right now I believe what they say is that signage can be in any number of languages, at the condition that it be partly in French and French be predominant, thereby respecting French’s status as the common language of Quebec. There is of course no “police” to enforce this: inspectors will only respond to private citizens’ complaints.
As far as I know there are no laws about language in signage in Belgium, but given that from where I’m sitting, it appears that the Flemings’ main complaint is that because of the expansion of metropolitan Brussels, francophones are moving on their territory without bothering to learn Flemish, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Flemish community pass such laws. And it might not be a bad idea.
Comment by Marc — June 18, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Perhaps it would be useful to imagine a layered solution, where the regions of Belgium are decoupled from geography. For example, there could be two layers, one for nationality (Belgium) and one for language preference (French or Flemish). Anyone with Belgian citizenship would be permitted to also opt for either citizenship of the French layer or citizenship of the Flemish layer.
The situation in Northern Ireland is similar. People born there may opt for British or Eire citizenship, or both, with full rights of residence & voting rights in both countries.
Comment by Peter — June 19, 2008 @ 9:24 am
I used to live in Hoeilaert for 2 years as a teeneger: being a British family, we were acceptable to a degree that French-speakers wouldn’t have been.
There is no exit at Hoeilaert from the Namur motorway that comes south out of Brussels and we were told that this was because the municipality didn’t want it to be any more accessible in a way that might encourage French-speakers in the area. Apparently the aim was to prevent Brussels from physically joining up with Wallonia. With Brussels as a bi-lingual ‘island’ in a sea of Flemish speakers (not Dutch as you have it — its a very different language, as my mother, a Dutch speaker, will attest) they felt that Walloon power was limited over, I guess, planning and transport decisions.
Comment by Anna — June 19, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Perhaps we can propose to install a airlift between Brussels and Wallonia.
Belgian is definitively out of date.
Comment by Claude — June 19, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
@Anna
Flemish is a dialect of Dutch, no?
How about South Tirol? The area is officially bilingual (German/Italian). Most of the Italian speakers refuse to learn German. Tension between Italian and German speakers exists because of the Italians’ lack of respect for the original local language and culture (Austrian).
Is Belgium going to become another South Tirol?
Comment by Ron — June 19, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Could someone please explain to me me: if Flemings speak dutch, does that mean they’re also Netherlanders or are they seperate people? And if Vallons speak French, does that mean they’re also French or are they a seperate people?
Comment by Nationalist — June 19, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Nationalist,
Language does not equal nationality. English-speaking Canadians are not Americans, Dutch-speaking Flemings are not Nederlanders, and French-speaking Walloons are not French.
The word “nationality” is a problem, since it does double duty in English. It means both country of citizenship, and the group with which you are associated by common history, language, religion, etc. The Walloons and French may or may not be in the same nation as some French people under the second meaning, but after Napolean lost, the Walloons have been unambiguously different from the French in the first sense.
Maybe we should use Staatsanhoerigkeit for the first sense and Nationalitat for the second.
Comment by David — June 19, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
@Anna: People in Flanders and The Netherlands speak the same language: Dutch. We use the same dictionary and the same spelling. You can’t tell the difference between a text written by a Flemming or a text written by a Dutch.
However, there are many dialects spoken in both Flanders and The Netherlands. Sometimes that makes it hard to understand each other. Almost all young people in Flanders speak Dutch. Most of them also speak their local dialect. But elderly people sometimes only speak their local dialect. These dialects can be very different. Some are actually closer to German than to Dutch. But in fact there isn’t really something like a Flemish language. “Flemish” is just a collection of Dutch dialects.
@David: The growing influence of the EU is used by separatists as an argument in favour of splitting up the country. Because more and more of our legislation comes directly from Europe, it is increasingly important for all Belgian regions to be represented on the European level. But in the European decision making, only states have a say.
@Nationalist: Wallonia used to have it’s own dialects that are quite different from French. They have a very different history than France. So I don’t think they really see themselves as French. But I’m not a Walloon, so I’m probably not the right person to answer that question.
As for Flanders and the Netherlands: What we call Flanders today, used to be part of the southern Netherlands. In the 16the century The Netherlands (including Flanders) fought a war against Spain. When the Spaniards toke Antwerp in 1585, the Netherlands were separated. So before 1585 people in Flanders were Dutch. But 1585 is a long time ago, and most people in Flanders don’t feel Dutch at all. There is a small group of nationalists who believe we are all Dutch and should be reunited. But they are only a very small group.
In between 1815 and 1830, the Netherlands were reunited for a short time. When Belgium declared independence, most Flemish cities wanted to stay part of the Netherlands. The period after 1830 was a disaster for Flanders and many people agree that the Belgian independence was a mistake. But you can’t erase 178 years of history. 178 years in which the Flemish people had to fight very hard to maintain their identity and to gain the right to be governed in their own language. (We had to wait until 1967 for a full official translation of the Belgian constitution in Dutch!) The Dutch lived in a completely different situation. We are very different people nowadays. And while I do believe we need strong economic ties with the Netherlands, I don’t think a political union would be a good idea. We have a very different political culture.
Comment by Tijl — June 19, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
O.K. Thanks for explaining. I was always very confused by the situation in Belgium.
Comment by Nationalist — June 19, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
@Tommickx:
The Belgian situation is complicated indeed, but I dispute that it is insignificant. Here we have the collision of two great European cultures, the Latin and the German. Whether the Belgian compromise continues to work is not only significant for Belgium, but for the whole of Europe – a multi-lingual construct which one can consider to be a kind of ‘Greater Belgium’…
But the prospects for compromise do not look good. The differing philosophies of state north and south of the language border have crystallised into incompatible views on B-H-V. Slowly, a breakup seems less embarrassing for either side than a new compromise. Such a breakup of Belgium would be less violent than Yugoslavia, but more significant than Czechoslovakia.
It could be the beginning of the end of a process already visible today: the unravelling of the European Union (cf. the recent Irish ‘no’ vote as another symptom of the EU’s inability to convince its citizens that streamlining its institutions would be in their best interest).
Comment by Ruland Kolen — June 20, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
@peter
This is already the case and also one of the reasons why Belgium is such a complicated country. As a matter of fact, it is a Belgian model that has been exported to other places in the world with similar problems.
In theory, Belgium has seven governments ruling some 10 million people (in practice, there are only six). At the top, you have the federal state. Beneath it, you have three regions and three communities.
The regions are Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia. The governments of these regions are responsible for territorial issues.
The three communities are responsible for language and culture. They are Dutch, French and German. Because the Flemish region and the Dutch speaking community pretty much overlaps (with the exception of Brussels) they decided to merge these into one.
The walloon region overlaps the french and german speaking areas and this is probably the reason why the Francophones haven’t bothered merging their governments.
Comment by Patrik — June 20, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
@Nationalist
I don’t think you can really speak of ethnicity in Belgium. As with everything else, its complicated. Whether your Flemish, Francophone, Walloon or simply just plain Belgian is probably something every individual has to determine for themselves, depending on their situation. Simply because it’s all mixed up.
A nice example of this is Brussels, originally a Flemish city. This changed when the Flemish elite preferred to speak French and a few generations later, their children couldn’t even speak Dutch anymore even though they had Dutch names. But they are also not Walloons and so anyone who speaks French is generally referred to as Francophone.
As for me, I’m Flemmish but I have a French name and half of my family tree resides in Wallonia and the other half in Flanders.
I’ve also met Walloons who spoke Dutch so well I would have mistaken them for being Flemish.
Comment by Patrik — June 20, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
@David
Quote ”Second, as the EU acts more like a Federal government is the pressure between the groups in Belgium increasing, or decreasing? It seems like it should decrease, but maps like this reflect pretty high tensions.”
The Belgian federal state has pretty much given a lot of its powers away to Europe, the regions, the communities and to the European Central Bank. So much so that the only important item left on their agenda is balancing the budget once a year. That we survived nine months without a government is a testament to this. Nobody noticed a difference and Belgium continues functioning as it always did.
And although we do have a government now, we have now entered a situation where we have politicians with too much time on their hands. With no outside pressures and no big issues to tackle, there is also little incentive for them to continue with the famous Belgian compromise model. Instead, they are now using the Federal parliament as an election platform to invigorate their bases for the 2009 regional elections. Simply because the real power in Belgium has shifted to a more local level.
But if we look past the politicians, the media headlines and the silly proposals, I’m not really sure if the tensions between the groups in daily life has actually increased. While the Flemish and Walloons may get all worked up about an issue like B-H-V if you mention it; in reality, it only affects a very small portion of the population. The real concerns, whether you are Flemish or Francophone, are pretty much the same as in the rest of Europe: inflation. It just so happens that our federal government doesn’t have the power anymore to do much about it. So they concern themselves with squirrels instead.
Comment by Patrik — June 20, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Does this corridor really only passe through a nature reserve? If so, then why are there a bunch of streets running through it?
Comment by James M. — June 23, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Ron (comment 25) – my understanding is that in Luxembourg, Luxembourgish is the home language of almost everyone born there, and that French and German are also official languages because the country is surrounded by French- and German-speaking areas. It’s a different type of situation than Belgium.
Comment by James M. — June 23, 2008 @ 1:12 am
James-German is official because Luxembourgish is technicaly a dialect of German, but it is so different that it can be considered a separate language. French is official for historical reasons.
P.S.: Luxembourg can’t break up because it is too small to break up.
Comment by Nationalist — June 23, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Isn’t it amazing that these kind of conflicts still exist in a Europe that is trying to push its countries closer and closer, e.g. Lisbon treaty.
Comment by Liam — June 24, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
@James
The coridor is a forest : see
http://maps.google.fr/maps?hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=50.762631,4.422855&spn=0.049405,0.105743&t=k&z=13
Comment by Pierre — June 25, 2008 @ 11:54 am
[...] Maps, una web de mapes de la que rebo el rss i que em pareix molt interessant, parla sobre les discussions territorials a Bèlgica respecte un corredor francòfon. La proposta transcorre pel territori flamenc i uneix els francòfons de Valònia amb la ciutat [...]
Pingback by Un corredor francòfon entre Brusel·les i Valònia « Xarxes socials i llengües — June 28, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
[...] les blogs strangemaps (là) et xarxes (ici), le couloir reliant la Wallonie à la région bruxelloise, tracé à travers la [...]
Pingback by Le plan “Wallonie” • Blog Archive • les carnets de clarisse — July 29, 2008 @ 12:13 am
I’ve recently come upon a discussion on the future status of Brussels if Belgium finally broke up. 3 possibilities were mentioned:
1) Brussels remains in the Flemish part. Too bad for the Francophones living there.
2) Brussels remains in Wallonia, connected by a corridor (that’s the option explained in this post)
3) Brussels “leaves” Belgium altogether and becomes the capital of the EU, a kind of “European Washington D.C.”
Obviously, any of these solutions would be extremely complex to put into reality. And let’s not forget the movements in Wallonia that desire for that part of Belgium to join France…
@Johan #6: Maybe the Flemish are more “open to the world” than the Walloons… but that doesn’t stop them from sometimes being irrationally anti-french. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but I’ve heard that there are only two places in the world where TV5 (the worldwide french-speaking TV channel) is barred from the air: Flanders and… North Korea.
@Llyod #15
Ah, the Quebec “Language Police” story… Haven’t heard that one since the good old days of the Quebec Referendum of 1995. Since Marc (#29) has done a good job rectifying the facts, I’ll just add one thing: maybe the laws that were passed in Quebec to protect the french language were not such a bad idea after all, since California and other western states of the U.S. are thinking of emulating them in order to face the “invasion” of spanish…
Comment by Schmorgluf — August 28, 2008 @ 12:41 am
This map is unacceptable. Flanders and the vast mayority of the Flemish people would not except it. Anyone thinking this map will be the solution does not live in the real world
Comment by Thorvald — September 12, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Hi everyone.
I found this just in my daily random surfing. It seems (it’s not the first time I read this) that many people in the world think Belgium is just a country with French people and dutch people mixed. This is completely wrong. As a young Walloon student, I must say that I don’t feel at all French (as #36 Tilj said correctly). I consider myself as a belgian european. I don’t feel any solidarity with France, for me it is just another country. I nearly find this offending, because it shows how few you consider Belgium as a real country. Which many Belgians actually do (Flemishes nationalists are not a big part of them, whatever the dairies can say).
As for the walloon dialect (still #36) it’s no used anymore (I can only understand it a bit) but france-french and belgium-french have several differences between them (we have many idioms that come from dutch or from old walloon dialect)
Excuse my bad English, as I told you, I’m still a learning student.
Comment by Mortecouille — September 23, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
thanks
Comment by games — October 15, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
I’m from England and the more I find out about the chaos in Belgium, the more I see Francophone and Walloon expansionism. So many bits of Flanders and other Dutch speaking areas have been swallowed up by the ever northwards expanding Wallonia borders. So many parts of Wallonia were never historically Walloon, Towns like Komen(Comines) etc. Also folks should remember there are even less Walloons compared to Flemmish folks because so many French speakers are either infact Frenchified Flemish elites or Frenchified Flemish John Does. Anyway if Brabant can split up into ethnostans, why can’t Belgium also split up? Why has the German speaking part of Belgium and it’s people been forced and absorbed into a greater Wallonia. Walloonia and Walloons living in Brussels want rights has a minority in Flanders but don’t want to recipricate these minority rights to the big strip of German speaking areas annexed by into Wallonia. Why can’t the German areas detatch themselves from Walloonia and share equal status as Brussels, Flanders and Walloonia. Ps if Walloonia passes into a imperialist and grandiose France then France should give back the huge portion of Flanders within it’s borders from Dunkirk and the channel ports all the way to Lille (Rijsel) and beyond. Everything about some these places annexed by France is so not French – buildings, placenames, surnames, history etc same could be said of Alsace and Lorraine too. How the hell France justifies them as French.
Comment by Derek Knatchbull — December 5, 2008 @ 6:09 am
PS also most French speakers in Brussels are not Walloons but infact Frenchified Flemish bourgeoise, millions of International diplomats and beuracrats and innocent French speaking immigrants used has cannon fodder to Frenchify Brussels. Has for the facist like whims of a Francophone corridor – it’s type has happened before all over Belgium…the Comines Walloonistan enclave including motorway smashing through Flanders to link Frenchified Comines with Walloonia, Tournai, Mons, Southern Brabant (now Walloon Brabant). The grandiose Walloons/Frncophones even split the little German language area into two parts! Tinkering like that with borders, population and language is what I call fascist control. PS England and the world not only defeated Nazi Germany, it defeated Nazi France aka Vichy France.
Comment by Derek Knatchbull — December 5, 2008 @ 6:27 am
[...] toch niet zo onzinnig om de beide Limburgen samen te promoten? Misschien denken we nog teveel in termen van negentiende-eeuwse veldslagen in plaats van éénentwintigste-eeuwse [...]
Pingback by Oosterse wijsheden « The missing link — March 9, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
thank you
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 3:44 am
thanks for this map
good
luck
….
Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 8:59 am
merci
Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 6:42 am
I bet you can make a thousand different “strange” maps about Belgium. And thats just one of the things I like about this country.
Comment by Simon — May 22, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
If the corridor were to be transferred to Brussels, the squirrels would actually change from Dutch-speaking to bilingual squirrels. Quite a feat, isn’t it?
Comment by Bismarck — June 19, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
I realize I’m a year late to the discussion, but I’ve noticed nobody really mentioned WHY French speaking people are moving into Flanders and not bothering to learn Dutch.
Basically, the idea was that Brussels would be the bilingual capital, and in the 1960s (ish) they made its city limits the language border. Naturally, Brussels, as with every other city in the world, has grown significantly in the last 50 years, including the expansion of the suburbs. All the French speakers are really just trying to live in the suburbs of the officially bilingual, but predominately French capital, but they find themselves unable to get any government paperwork done because it’s all in Dutch on principle. So it’s not malicious francophone expansionism, it’s normal people who just want to live in the suburbs.
And no, as far as I could tell after living in Belgium for a year, there’s no laws on (non-government) signage, or a language police.
Comment by Oreo Priest — June 25, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:17 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:41 am