LL-L "Language policies" 2002.08.07 (04) [E/LS]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 07.AUG.2002 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>, Email: <admin at lowlands-l.net>
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Friedrich-Wilhelm Neumann" <Friedrich-Wilhelm.Neumann at epost.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language policies" 2002.08.07 (03) [E]

Simon simon.hoare at mail.be wrote:

> From: Simon Hoare <>
> Subject: Language Policies
>
> The more I live in Belgium, the more I begin to suspect that the
> north/south Flemish/Walloon divide scenario for Belgium is an
> over-simplification. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
>
> Here is what I perceive at any rate:
>
> Wallonia i.e. "the south" (notwithstanding the tiny German-speaking
> community) is essentially monolingual French-speaking (with some use of
> French dialects here and there: Walloon, Picard, Lorraine, Gaumais
> etc.). Any socio-economic need to speak other languages is relatively
> recent. French is largely understood to be the language of France and
> the basis of the local standard. Population is largely Francophile as a
> result and has a strong participation in French (of France) culture.
>
> Brussels is officially bilingual. The local population seems to be far
> more french-speaking and francophile. Many local people are hostile to
> the Flemish claim that Brussels is theirs and more importantly their
> capital. Yet, among French-speakers, even among families of Walloon
> immigrants, attachment to Wallonia is quite weak and any kinship is
> based mainly on the use of the French language. Dutch-speaking locals
> from Brussels tend to consider themselves Flemish, and will probably
> speak local Flemish dialect. The modern economic weight of Flanders and
> the fact that most Flemings tend to speak more languages and have a
> greater work ethic means that Flemish workers are highly present in
> Brussels, although the resident Flemish population is low. Also Brussels
> is the capital of Belgium and contains its national institutions and
> companies. These are by and large Flemish dominated but not absolutely.
>
> Flemings see the French-speaking character of Brussels as artificial and
> related to the former social status of French, which has traditionally
> had elitist connotations for the Flemish. It used to Flemish - The
> French-speaking elite made it French-speaking - The Flemish have got rid
> of the French speaking elite "in the rest of Flanders" and now want
> their capital back. In reality the "elite" in Belgium is largely
> Flemish.
>
> To the French-speakers in Brussels the French-speaking reality of
> Brussels is clear and straightforward. Why change it? They don't
> consider themselves and elite and by and large consider actions to
> increase the Flemish presence in Brussels as hostile. Which is true in a
> way. Many Flemings don't want to share Brussels they "want it back".
>
> Brussels has for a long time been the center of administration for
> various entities in these part of Europe i.e. Spanish netherlands,
> Belgium etc. I think even the Spanish used French as the language of
> administration.
>
> There's more to Brussels but that's enough I think.
>
> Flanders is complicated: For a start its borders vary depending on who
> you talk to. For a Fleming, it is north Belgium. For a French-speaking
> Belgium, it is north Belgium except for Brussels. The official language
> in the Flemish Region (north Belgium except for Brussels) is Dutch.
> Previously upper echelons of Flemish society spoke French (hence elitist
> connotations) while the common people spoke various low German dialects.
> In the nineteenth century, newly independent Belgium having freed itself
> from the United Netherlands did not favour Dutch as a language. So the
> situation was that French was the De Facto if not De Jure language of
> Belgium. To cut a long story short French was the language of polite
> society and officialdom - ordinary people spoke low german dialects in
> the north (includung Brussels) and french-based dialects in the south.
> French had naturally greater porosity with Walloon etc. Now Flanders is
> a very beautiful place, with a rich history. For this reason it played a
> big role in Belgian identity and romanticism. Yet to be Flemish and to
> speak French with a Flemish accent in the nineteenth century did not
> carry great status. To get ahead you had to speak French. But this
> paradoxical romanticisation of Flanders while its common inhabitants
> were placed on a lower level in society to a French speaking elite (many
> of which were Flemings who had been educated in French) led to
> nationalism and more concretely the Flemish Movement. Dutch was picked
> as a vehicle not because it was the language of Flanders but because it
> was close enough to what people spoke. Dutch remains the language of the
> Netherlands and attatchment to and use of local dialect remains high, as
> does knowledge of other languages (German, English). They could have
> picked German instead of Dutch.
>
> The point of all this is that the modern reality of Belgium has been
> created by circumstances of the nineteenth century. The de-Frenchifying
> of Flanders was began as a social revolution and as long as Brussels
> remains French-speaking, this revolution will be considered incomplete.
> The divide in Belgium to my mind is not geographical north south - it is
> somewhere between two extreme points of view: a nostalgic yearning for
> la Belgique de Papa and a desire for an onafhankelijk Vlaanderen. I'm
> not really sure there has ever been any concentration of power in
> Wallonia or any social status or indeed any social status in being
> Walloon. French-speakers tend to consider themselves Belgian and
> Dutch-speakers tend to consider themselves Flemish.
>
> PS I once read something in a Dutch newspaper about the Flemish behaving
> as a minority in a country in which they are the majority.

Hi, Simon, Leeglanners,

I fear, You did open Pandora's box just now! I'll wonder for the answers
to
Your mail- it's a very sensitive theme You caught!
There is a big part within my "LL-mind and feeling" crying for "justice
for
the flemish minoríty" in Belgium, but:

a good and well interested friend of mine- half Belgian (Flemish), half
German, told me (years ago), it would be impossible to understand those
"animosities" between Wallones and Flemish in Belgium. He also told me,
that
just these differences between the two ethnological  groups would be the
reason for some "difficulties" in administrative matters.

Well- latest history in Germany: the former "West-" Germany had the bad
experience of  WW 2; it was rebuilt as a confederation, and there was a
kind
of melting process in very bad and hard times. West-Germany started
(perhaps
for the first time in European history) to become a nation, but- new in
new
times-  still respecting minorities (Danish in the North, French at the
Saarland and may be more).
Then (in 1990) we had the Re-Union with the Eastern Parts of G., former
"DDR".
Since that day we have problems again, similar to Belgium. There are
some
folks, finding themselves "underprivileged", specially in the East, and
others, in the western parts, feel as those ones, who have to pay and to
pay and... without an end to see.

I'm sure, all of that we shall be able to have been managed within the
next
20 years.

German solution? Not respecting Turkish, Russian and other minorities
and
(at the moment) trouble-making folks? "Yes, and that is why EU makes the
Germans happy!"*s*  But- seriously said- all that would be impossible
without finding ourselves in the greater European context, with
financial
and "moralic" help from all our neighbours! Why not the same in
Bruxelles?

Sorry, Belgian Leeglanners, ick schall Jaun tauköömst' Biidreeg woll
recht
ennig lees'n!

Kumpelmenten un' regards

Fiete.

----------

From: "Luc Hellinckx" <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Language policies

Beste leeglanners,

And Simon Hoare in particular *s*...the description of the linguistic
situation in Belgium that Simon gave us is quite correct and pretty
complete.

Yet, I have a few remarks :

>The Flemish have got rid
>of the French speaking elite "in the rest of Flanders" and now want
>their capital back. In reality the "elite" in Belgium is largely
>Flemish.

Indeed, "we" got rid of the French speaking elite "in the rest of
Flanders"...but not completely...Antwerp, and Ghent especially, still
have
clusters of (older) French speaking societies...I don't think anybody is
really bothered by them though. Sociologically speaking they could be
labelled "upper-bourgeois". The (small) city where I live in, Halle, is
more
complex, because it's right on the linguistic border and as a
consequence
it's nigh impossible to classify french speaking citizens in any
way...yet,
Halle is officially a part of the Flemish community (no so called
"facilities"). Those "facilities" are a bit of a laugh really, because
local
shopkeepers try to speak the language of their client, whether it be
French,
Dutch, German or any other language. Regarding "elite" (whatever that
means
*s*), I have the impression nevertheless that it would be easier to
speak of
an "elite" in Wallonia than in Flanders. The economical and cultural
situation in Wallonia is much more polarized than it is in the North.
Plus,
Wallonia still has a sizeable number of "noblemen" amidst its "fellow
men",
who might be quite eager to take up this role.

>I'm not really sure there has ever been any concentration of power in
>Wallonia or any social status or indeed any social status in being
>Walloon.

There's been a huge concentration of power in Wallonia during the 19th
century. Belgium was the ?rst country on the European continent that was
economically transformed. William Cockerill (from Leeds) imported new
techniques for the iron and steel industry in Wallonia (1807) and as a
result Liège, Mons, Charleroi and La Louvière became prosperous (and
left
their marks on national politics for over a century). A long industrial
belt
starts in the "Ruhrgebiet" in Germany and runs through northern
Wallonia,
all the way to Lille (in France). This area is dotted with towns that
all
had their heyday during the 19th century, and politically speaking
"socialism" was very much en vogue in the south. But this "classical"
industry (focused on iron, steel and coal) slackened (even died out in
some
places) and local entrepreneurs have not yet shown up "en masse"(very
important !), so a lot of unemployment is faced nowadays. South of this
belt, Wallonia is very scenic (but took even less (financial) profit of
the
19th century industrialization) and resorts to "tourism". In Wallonia, a
huge gap exists between people who have money and those who don't.
Although
a strong "Walloon identity" does not exist to my knowledge, feelings of
adhering to a certain city do. Inhabitants of Liège for example are said
to
be notoriously proud of their city (and province). But that's a
phenomenon
that can be found all over the world, no matter what you're studying; at
the border of two (or more) regions, "nationalist" feelings intensify.
Those living at the edge, want to be "more catholic as the Pope", as we
put it *s*. Linguistically speaking, frontier regions are also often
very
interesting because they retain a lot of relicts and characteristics
from
older speech, that got lost a long time ago in the (power)centre.

>PS I once read something in a Dutch newspaper about the Flemish behaving
>as a minority in a country in which they are the majority.
That's right, Flemish people often like to behave as if they're the
perpetual underdog, and then score unexpectedly.

No doubt, this has a lot to do with the bigguns making fun of us in the
past (we got promoted from being THE European battlefield
to THE buffer state *s*). England traditionally finds us the most boring
place in Europe (well maybe we're second after Switzerland), Holland is
laughing its hat off with our dialects and the French invariably call us
"les petits Belges". I guess shrinks who are specialized in treating  an
"inferiority complex" could soon become very rich here in Belgium *s*.

Greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 * Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================