This is being broadcast right here, right now. You can find the link from a security camera showing me sitting in a library with my feet kicked up on a coffee table in front of me as I look at my phone.
I'm enjoying my first mid-day break of the last couple weeks and happened upon a thread with interesting possibilities but rather disappointing posts.
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/114592-living-?Offset=20Nonetheeless, there is an interesting discussion of Belgium that I think deserves attention.
Some arguments:
- Is Belgium really a state? This seems rather silly. It is until it isn't. Just because the governments have been in constant flux and the different communities have been arguing off and on doesn't mean it isn't a state.
- Is Belgium merely an extension of Germany? I inferred this from the reference of Belgium being "German." Well, German is not the same as Germanic, and the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) does not necessarily mean all feudal territories within the constitutional and feudal structures we'll call an empire (for lack of a better term) were in fact "German." Germanic, sure; German, no.
BelgianGentleman refers to the division of Belgium from the Netherlands. It was mainly due to religious differences: Catholics remained in and fled to the south of the 17 United Provinces ("Belgium") and Protestants remained in and fled to the north ("the Netherlands"). Sure, the document stating Dutch independence refers to the Spanish king's mistreatment of his subjects and how he ignored and violated the customs and privileges of the Dutch people, unlike his more understanding father, the Flemish/Dutch-speaking Charles V. But it is the religious persecution that was the impetus for revolt and an 80-years war that led to de jure independence with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended another war fought over feudal, territorial, religious, and political matters.
Returning to the question of language, Belgica, Netherlands, United Provinces, and Low Countries have all been used at various times in history to refer to what we know as "Belgium" and "the Netherlands." It is like how "Germany" has many words to choose from, and each European language has selected its preference, according to local usage: Allemagne (from the Alemanian tribe, "all men" in the old German, I assume), Germany (from Germania, Latin), Deutschland, etc. But in the case of Belgium and the Netherlands, they have shared the same adjectives and basically had the same choices available when deciding upon a name. They are two states with a common history and, at one time, a shared language.
- Is BelgianGentleman being a nationalist? He has provided historical arguments that are true. Yet the person attacking him appears to be naive and offers nothing but a casual insult. Why is he a nationalist? Because he offered ideas you don't understand?
- My questions: Is the European Union's de facto capital in Brussels helpful to Belgian statehood/cohesion or detrimental to Belgian unity? The French element (much day-to-day business of the EU in Brussels is done in Fench) is a factor. Does this influence the already precarious ethno-linguistic equilibrium in Belgium? Or does the EU provide a supranational element that provides greater stability to Belgium?
I've run out of coffee and have to go back to work.
Edited 10/21/2015 03:17:35
