By nature, Belgium, with its ports, rivers, fertile soil, and coal, is one of the richest places on Earth, as it has been for most of the last 900 years. As a state, however, it's a failed 19th Century experiment in multiculturalism. The founding of the Kingdom of Belgium in the 1830s was popular with the Great Powers as a convenient neutral buffer zone between the great linguistic zones of Western Europe (Germanic and Romance) and/or a convenient place for Great Powers to fight battles without messing up their own countries. And combining Catholics who spoke Flemish and Catholics who spoke French seemed to make sense.
Over time, religion became less salient, leaving language as the great divide. It's natural to sympathize with other people with whom you converse more than with other people with whom you can't as readily interchange thoughts. It's also easier to monitor them to make sure they aren't cheating you.
The rise of NATO and the European Union has made the sheer size of a country ever less important for warfare or trade. So, states increasingly exist in Europe today less as part of a great game to accumulate the most military-industrial might to conquer other states, but mostly as affirmations of nationhood and as a means to redistribute wealth, both to interests and to the pockets of the leaders of interests.
The rise of NATO and the European Union has made the sheer size of a country ever less important for warfare or trade. So, states increasingly exist in Europe today less as part of a great game to accumulate the most military-industrial might to conquer other states, but mostly as affirmations of nationhood and as a means to redistribute wealth, both to interests and to the pockets of the leaders of interests.
In the past, both the aristocrats and the leading coal and iron regions of Belgium were French-speaking, so they had most of the money. Over time, however, the Flemish have become more productive, and resent having the wealth they earn taxed away and, net, given to Walloons. Both sides rightfully resent the corrupt rake-off by politicians, which is unusually high for northern Europe. My guess is that Belgium is not only unsurprisingly more corrupt than the Netherlands to the north but also more corrupt than France to the south, although I haven't looked into this for years.
Mixed ethnicity democracies tend to be crooked for what might be called the Lee Kwan Yew-FDR reason: You can't afford to vote out a corrupt SOB of your own group because while he might be an SOB, he's your SOB and -- at an admittedly high cost -- he protects you against the other guys' SOBs.
Belgium has been haltingly devolving toward a decentralized Switzerland model, but it might make more sense to just split the country into two countries along language lines with perhaps Brussels becoming the Vatican City of the EU.
But there's tremendous resistance to this sensible solution among the Euro-elites. The NYT says, reflecting the unthinking elite consensus:
"Europe as a whole may be busy papering over its differences, burying cultural disparities and centuries of feuding. But not Belgium. It seems headed the other way."
In reality, the splitting up of Belgium would be a triumph for the European Union, showing that countries don't need to be big in Europe anymore to avoid being trampled on the battlefield or isolated economically, and can now afford to reduce themselves to sizes more congenial to honest, effective self-rule and national affirmations. But, that's too sophisticated of an idea for Euro-elites. They've been trumpeting themselves for 60 years as "burying cultural disparities and centuries of feuding," so they feel they can't afford to let Belgium, the proto-EU, break up, not matter how much better it would be for good government.
Posts
47 comments:
Hm.
How does this compare to the scattered German states created in the wake of the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire? They were intentionally decentralized to avoid being manipulated by a resurgent France (oh, what a quaint fear!). In the south, Catholicism was dominant; in the north, Protestantism. When Prussia finally united these states, language apparently trumped religion, because they're still around - we call it Germany now, of course.
Admitting that there are cultural, religious, ethnic, and quite some other differences among the people is anathema to Freemasons.
Sure, allow secession by different ethno-linguistic areas. Devolve power over immigration & naturalization, monetary policy, law enforcement, etc. Knit the areas together in a defense alliance / customs union.
It will only work, long term, if the supranational government has to borrow almost all of its important civilians (executive and legislative) from the national governments. Which is why the EU isn't "working" (i.e. why the EU is centralizing power).
You know, at one point not too long ago, the races were largely separated from one another. Whites lived in Europe. Asians lived in Asia. Africans lived in Africa. Native American Indians lived in North and South America. And everyone could enjoy being in the company of their own people and being immersed in their own culture and heritage. Ethnic solidarity abounded...
Then what happened? The Europeans chose to bring themselves into contact with other races! They colonized the Native American Indians in South America, in the process interbreeding with them and creating an entire race of Mestizo Hispanics. They engaged in the African slave trade, bringing millions of Africans over to North America, where the Native American Indians there were mostly exterminated or driven off onto reservations.
There have been many complaints about Whites no longer being able to live amongst themselves and enjoy their own culture and heritage. The quintessential irony is that only a few hundred years ago, everyone was more or less living with their own kind, Whites included. It was the Whites who choose to expand into the lands of other people, thereby bringing themselves into contact with different races. Let's examine a different group of people, the Japanese.
What did the Japanese do? They said, "You leave us alone. We'll leave you alone. We want to be with our own people and we want to enjoy our own culture and heritage." Lo and behold, today Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. And why is this the case? I would say that it's largely to the fact that the Japanese never chose to bring themselves into contact with others.
I should say that the current plight afflicting the White race is largely the fault of Whites themselves.
Anonymous, I have to disagree with you. Seems that the Japanese did some colonial expansion during the last century, but got beat in a major war and had to withdraw to their own country. Whites today are not responsible for what other whites did centuries ago. Rather, whites are to be commended for opening up their societies to others without being conquered.
"I should say that the current plight afflicting the White race is largely the fault of Whites themselves."
Of course, sometimes we speak of whites doing this or blacks doing that. It's simply a way of speaking, though - individuals are responsible for their own actions. So to say that it's Steve's fault that someone 400 years ago brought over a slave from Africa is absurd. I don't know why this fallacy is so difficult to overcome, but it seems to crop up a lot. No whites living today are responsible for the institution of slavery, nor for the settlement of the Americas. To judge that persons living today should bear the moral burden of the actions of previous generations is either perverse or incredibly stupid. I can't tell which mistake you made.
Did I blame whites currently living today for slavery? No. I said that it was whites who chose to bring themselves into contact with other races, at a time hundreds of years ago when most of the races were living amongst themselves. Therefore, it is these whites from the past who should bear most of the blame for starting the entire process of bringing whites into contact with other races, a situation which many of the readers on here seem to abhor today. Remember, the Europeans could've lived amongst themselves rather than conquer the lands of others. And the Asians and Africans and Native Americans all could've lived amongst themselves. And had that happened, there wouldn't be the problem of contemporary Europeans facing an ethnic assault upon their nations.
Europe as a whole may be busy papering over its differences, burying cultural disparities and centuries of feuding. But not Belgium. It seems headed the other way.
Really? Yugoslavia has broken up into several countries. Czechoslovakia is now Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The USSR ... do I need to go there? Even the United Kingdom is devolving back into England, Scotland, and Wales.
anonymous said, "You know, at one point not too long ago, the races were largely separated from one another. Whites lived in Europe. Asians lived in Asia. Africans lived in Africa. Native American Indians lived in North and South America. And everyone could enjoy being in the company of their own people and being immersed in their own culture and heritage. Ethnic solidarity abounded."
Your conclusions are not exactly correct. First, you could claim that whites going back to Greece and Rome invaded and conquered other people. Second, other people such as Moors, Ottomans and Mongolians rode roughshod over Europe well before Columbus and his 1492 expedition.
"...whites are to be commended for opening up their societies to others without being conquered."
Commended for what, immiserating themselves? And whites are being conquered.
White Europeans developed the technology to be able to set sail on the bounding main and then they were supposed to do what, not set sail on the bounding main?!
But go ahead, crap on whitey, be one of the herd of independent minds.
In reality, the splitting up of Belgium would be a triumph for the European Union, showing that countries don't need to be big in Europe anymore to avoid being trampled on the battlefield or isolated economically, and can now afford to reduce themselves to sizes more congenial to honest, effective self-rule and national affirmations.
Isnt their fear that having split, both halves might follow on to the possible next step. That French speaking Belgium become a French department and Dutch speaking Belgium become a Dutch province.
There is also a small German speaking enclave of Belgium, obviously that would make more sense being added to Germany. Of course it was part of Germany 1940-45, but why should common sense - leaving it as part of Germany - play in any part in post-war settlements?
The elites, left or right, seem to have a visceral horror of ethnic/linguistic homogeneity.
Witness their attempts to lump the Turks and Greeks of Cyprus into one, previously non-existent nationality.
British conservative elites happy with that Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland have to live under Protestant/British rule. In turn British left/liberals look forward with excitement to the day when Northern Irish Protestants will be forced to live under Irish Catholic rule.
The elites dont seem happy unless someone else is unhappy in these situations.
In reality, the splitting up of Belgium would be a triumph for the European Union, showing that countries don't need to be big in Europe anymore to avoid being trampled on the battlefield or isolated economically, and can now afford to reduce themselves to sizes more congenial to honest, effective self-rule and national affirmations.
Globalists hate decentralization. Decentralization means more bureaucrats to bribe, more, smaller entities and elections to corrupt, etc.
Yugoslavia has broken up into several countries.
The elites still managed to extract their pound of flesh though. They managed to maintain Bosnia as a multiethnic shambles ie a 'success' in elite speak. And Kosovo too!
A country is a place where your own kin folk (extended family) can live self-sustained, and it's a place where all enemies are outside the borders.
I should say that the current plight afflicting the White race is largely the fault of Whites themselves.
Genetic memory, eh?
"But, that's too sophisticated of an idea for Euro-elite"
What does this mean? Come on, give us a real reason. I say it's because the purpose of the EU isn't to end wars or feuding per se, its purpose is the same one as with every left-wing project: equality. Localized rule is inimical to equality.
To be a bit more tendentious, one could say its goal is power. But the resulting attitude toward localized rule is obviously the same in that case. But I don't think power lust is a distinctive trait of left-wing elites; it's a trait of politicians. What the left-wing kind wants to do with its power is mandate equality.
It'd be cool if Anonymous stuck to one story. Ho-hum, the internet is full of retarded arguments.
CNN reports that more than 1 million protest Spanish court ruling in Barcelona...Catalonia is not Spain!
During the 14 and 15th centuries, Germany was busy trying to be an empire while France and England were well on their way to being Nation States. It was not until the 19th century that Germany coaleced into a Nation State. Language won out over religion, Royal families, and geography. Russia was similar to Spain. Once they defeated their main rivalry (Tatars and Moores) that they went on incredible expansion. That is why both are now enjoying being a Nation State without the baggage of empire for the first time (well Spain a while ago).
"Anonymous said...
What did the Japanese do? They said, "You leave us alone. We'll leave you alone. We want to be with our own people and we want to enjoy our own culture and heritage." Lo and behold, today Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. And why is this the case? I would say that it's largely to the fact that the Japanese never chose to bring themselves into contact with others."
Yeah, other than that minor unpleasantness from 1592 - 1598. And again from 1910 - 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
And of course, WWII. Surely, you've heard of that. It was in all the papers, as George Gobel used to say.
Your point about Japan reminds me of a lyric from an old Tom Lehrer song: "Some say the germans are warlike and mean. But that couldn't happen again. We taught them a lesson.....in 1918. And they've hardly bothered us since then."
Don't they all speak English though?
I would say that it's largely to the fact that the Japanese never chose to bring themselves into contact with others.
Japan which culturally revolutionized itself due to contact with the West and the importation of Western science?
Japan the conquering empire of East Asia?
Japan the cultural exporter and cultural importer?
I think the truth is they got the best of both worlds by accepting new ideas and changing culture in response to world cultural changes while not actually conquering poor people.
But someone had to go out and conquer to establish the kind of world community and the globalist trade we have. Conquering and slavery and settling produced huge possibilities for increases in richness in the long term. Japanese people are in the position of being "lucky" in getting the benefits of world trade without people consequently seeing their economies as places where they should be able to live.
A question to all of you
Is there any actual evidence, that conflict is reduced in a culturally homogenous society of at least several million people?
I know that, in a heterogenous society, the divide is usually between ethnic groups. But that does not necessarily imply that in a more homogenous society the divide would not just shift to, say wealth or whatever.
Isn't the problem, that humans are a hierarchical species and we have to build coalitions if we want to dominate society?
Sailer wrote:
"the unthinking elite consensus...."
Dude, you are THIS close. You are almost there. Go ahead and take the next stop. Realize that a primary elite strategy is to combine as many factions as possible into a single unit, into a single nation, state, city, neighborhood, workplace, school, etc. Factionalization is the PRIMARY elite tool to control the masses. And it aint leftwing, but rightwing, because it serves elite/rich interests.
Factionalization means combining populace factions into a single unit. That divides the masses because they cannot unite against the elite. As Madison wrote, the factionalized populace cannot "unite and discover their common interest". Divide et impera.
This is the founding principle of the USA. Madison wrote just exactly that in Federalist #10. Read Dr Woody Holton. Raed Dr Jerry Fresia. The USA was formed by the elite in a counterrevolution that divides the masses by combining factions into a federalist republic. Divide et impera, that is what Madison wrote to Jefferson in his letter.
The EU--same principle is at work. Not leftwing, but rightwing.
This is the central elite tool. Divide et impera. It is why the establishment loves immigration (besides the fact that it lowers wages). Divide et impera. Factionalize by import factions and using "civil rights" laws for force the factions together.
Take the next stop. Come join us.
Elite spokespersons UNTHINKINGLY adopt the elite perspective on factionalization. Secession is ANTI-factionalization and therefore anti-elite and pro-majority.
Realize this simple fact.
Take the next stop. Come join us.
-cryofan
"the Flemish have become more productive, and resent having the wealth they earn taxed away and, net, given to Walloons. "
And yet they don't seem to resent the wealth they earn being given to the PIGS - Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Greece - which have all been a net burden on their fellow members since joining the EU. Nor do the other contributing members seem to resent it: strange.
The significance of the break-up of an EU member state into smaller statelets is anti-democratic. Democracy is only effective in reasonably large nation-states. The smaller member states all look to the unelected European Commission to look after their interests against the members that still have some independence.
Just over to Belgium a couple of weeks ago. Hoofed it over from Genval, a small town south of Brussels, to Waterloo, following generally Blucher’s route to save the British bacon. The path was in Walloon country and is extraordinarily beautiful countryside.
Waterloo itself is what most historical battlefields are, lovely rolling farmland. There are two restaurants at Mt. St Jean, The Emperor’s Bivouac and The Cafe Wellington. The choice must try the English tourist’s soul. Is he willing to eat British food to stay loyal to the side?
I spoke to a Flemish guy in one town, asking him how his part of the country differed from the French-speaking area. He said his section was “all cement.” You get the idea that one thing the Flemish really resent is having to turn their part of the country into an unlovely industrial and commercial landscape in order to subsidize the Walloons, who get to live in beautiful rural areas.
There was one mark of a rather nice approach to law enforcement in the Walloon countryside. Instead of police cars or speed traps, they have these electric signs along the roadside. The sign spots cars a hundred or so yards ahead, detects their speed and then flashes it at the driver. If the car is going too fast, the sign ask them to please slow down. Then the sign continues to track the car and, if it does slow down, flashes a pleasant “Merci.” Do we have these anywhere in the U.S.?
Steve S quotes the NYT:
"Europe as a whole may be busy papering over its differences, burying cultural disparities and centuries of feuding. But not Belgium. It seems headed the other way."
Europe is papering over its inter-state differences, mainly through the agency of the EU. But at the same time it is fuelling its intra-state differences, what with issues over burqas and asylum-seekers etc.
Its a bit much to ask the NYT to grasp this subtle distinction.
White Europeans developed the technology to be able to set sail on the bounding main and then they were supposed to do what, not set sail on the bounding main?!
The Chinese did as well during the 1400s, but instead of enslaving the Africans they just brought back some giraffes and stuff for the imperial zoo. Some historians call the Chinese failure to engage in colonialism during this time as a missed opportunity. The irony is that this "missed opportunity" probably saved their civilization.
"The elites, left or right, seem to have a visceral horror of ethnic/linguistic homogeneity."
Sort of. There are a couple of issues at play: the breaking up of multi-cultural -linguistic states into homogenized nation-states did not work out so well in the last century, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, 1930s German, Ottoman Empire, etc. The Euro elites remember this better than we do.
They're worried that splitting Belgium will set off a domino effect in Western Europe. Spain would rather not have Catalonia and the Basques become their own countries. France would prefer to hold on to Breton. The great liberal success of the 19th century, the unification of Italy, could become undone. They halfway expect chaos and destruction from Slavs in the Balkans, but trouble in Western Europe is bad.
Anonymous said "Second, other people such as Moors, Ottomans and Mongolians rode roughshod over Europe well before Columbus and his 1492 expedition. "
Good point, however, you could then make the argument that although all races partook in the game, the whites were simply the best at it.
"Your conclusions are not exactly correct. First, you could claim that whites going back to Greece and Rome invaded and conquered other people. Second, other people such as Moors, Ottomans and Mongolians rode roughshod over Europe well before Columbus and his 1492 expedition. " Although that is true that begs the question, if all races have partook in that game, are whites (Europeans) simply the best at it?
Flemish language is not the same as Dutch language. They're close, like Spanish and Italian, and speakers of each can sort-of understand each other, but not the same.
Flanders is not Holland. Nor should it be.
No. I said that it was whites who chose to bring themselves into contact with other races, at a time hundreds of years ago when most of the races were living amongst themselves.
Columbus came from a family of Sephardic conversos.
When "Holland" contacted the East Indies, it was full of Jews who had emigrated from Iberia in the wake of the Inquisition.
When the British empire expanded, Jews like Disraeli and Reuter were at the forefront.
Reply to Anon at #4;
Nice try, but no cigar.
I would point out that Europe was the first victim of what you say, not the other way around. The Iberian peninsula was invaded and conquered for seven centuries by the Moors from Africa. What did those Europeans do to deserve this? In the Balkans the Ottoman Turks over-ran the whole area and ruled for six centuries. The root cause of the maliase and backwardness in the Balkans is due to the Turkish-Asiatic conquest and occupation. Further east the Asiatic Mongols invaded and conquered Russia and the Ukraine. In reality Europe was the victim of aggression from Asiatics and Africans long before the overseas expansion began. I would also mention that the historically all but ignored trans-Saharan slave trade took almost twice as many black Africans as the trans-Atlantic did. Also worth a mention are the 2,000,000 Europeans who were enslaved by the Barbary pirates in the Maghreb. At bottom I think what you are really trying to do here is undermine Whites criticizing immigration to their countries. I.E. no White person can condemn immigrants because 350-400 years ago his ancestor was one. By this logic if there is a second Jewish holocaust 340 years from now no German can criticize it for fear of being called a "hypocrite". No White southerner can ever criticize slavery because his ancestor may once have owned slaves and he is a "hypocrite" fro speaking out against slavery (still practised in many parts of the world today). The argument is ridiculous.
Interesting article about my neighbour country.
The first ten years the Netherlands and Belgium were one country, that was the main buffer the great powers of that time wanted it to be.
Very well explained, I have to say.
Steve, NATO is a dead letter and the EU is collapsing. It is already openly discussed in EU-centric Financial Times on which nation will leave the Eurozone first: Greece, Spain, Portugal, or Italy?
"Big" Countries can afford big domestic markets, big consortiums and/or industrial centers, big groups of internationally competitive manufacturers. Germany is behind only China in the value of manufactured goods exported. France, the UK, and Italy come close behind. Small countries like Iceland, Greece, and Portugal without resources like Norway or the ability to be bailed out forever by the taxpayers of Germany and France and the UK (itself no longer possible) are screwed. And easy prey for folks on the periphery: Russia, Turkey, possibly North African nations.
Estonia wants admission into the EUzone. As mostly, protection from Russia and bailouts galore.
The twin need for bigness to avoid predators and generate wealth has not gone away.
The Japanese brought themselves into intense and very close contact with others. Starting with Korea in the 1890's, and then Manchuria, and ending with the Greater East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere.
Japan only existed as an isolation nation if history skips from the 1850's straight on to 1950. For about 100 years the Japanese were the most intense colonial powers around.
The Persians ruled the Balkans, before Philip of Macedon kicked them out. The Carthaginians and Phoenicians ruled Spain, Sicily, and parts of Italy and France before being destroyed by the Romans. All well before the Christian Era.
As for the "saving of civilization" of China, that's a laugh. China declined to be a colonizer, to protect the power of the Emperor and the eunuchs, around the court, and so was colonized itself. China of course had previously colonized many, many peoples: the SE Asians, including Thai, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and others. The Central Asians, including the Uighurs (today ruled by China) and of course, intermittently Tibet. The Burmese too came in for special attention, as did the Mongolians, who also colonized THEM, and later the Manchu who colonized China.
China's problem was in failing to recognize both opportunity and threats from the oceans when traditionally (i.e. from 2000 BC to 1400 AD) threats had arrived overland from the West. Not trans-oceanic from the East. But if Chinese fleets could reach India and Africa, certainly fleets from THERE could reach China.
Ultimately a failure of imagination that led to about 300 years of colonization and dismemberment of much of China.
Anon wrote,
"What no one has contradicted me on is the virtually indisputable fact that a few hundred years ago, the world was basically the way that White Nationalists today want it to be...Your ancestors were the ones who made the fateful decisions of upending the racial fabric of global civilization some few hundred years ago, when they inevitably decided to embark upon a path of colonialism and destruction. As they can, karma sure can be a bitch.
Whites, northern whites, were the first to "upend the racial fabric"? No they weren't. Here are the facts:
453 AD: Attila the Hun (i.e. nonwhite) invaded from Asia, reaching France
711 AD: Africans led by Arabs invaded Spain.
732 AD: Africans, led by Arabs, were finally defeated in north central France
1230's to 1240's AD: Genghis Khan, a Mongol sent his Mongolian soldiers to march around central Europe.
1683 AD: Turks besieged and nearly conquered central Europe
And when, by the way, did the Southern Europeans ever invade Mongolia? And when did the Romans flood North Africa with millions of Romans and displace the native population? Military occupation isn't ideal, but at least it's reversable. Ethnic cleansing not so much.
>The Chinese did as well during the 1400s, but instead of enslaving the Africans they just brought back some giraffes and stuff for the imperial zoo. Some historians call the Chinese failure to engage in colonialism during this time as a missed opportunity. The irony is that this "missed opportunity" probably saved their civilization.<
This comment is wonderful! Another major cliche skewered.
For it's not just "some historians." It's every MSM scribbler whose beat goes anywhere East. It's the Official Party Line, repeated ad nauseum: "Ethnic isolationism ruined China's best chance to be a major (= suicidal) power. Down with isolationism! America should remain open - wide open - to the world."
My sincere congratulations for a comment that had me dancing on air.
Democracy is only effective in reasonably large nation-states.
Democracy is only really effective in the context it was created in: small, ethnically/culturally/religiously homogenous polities. Divorced from that context, it is little more than a polite lie.
The sign spots cars a hundred or so yards ahead, detects their speed and then flashes it at the driver. If the car is going too fast, the sign ask them to please slow down. Then the sign continues to track the car and, if it does slow down, flashes a pleasant “Merci.” Do we have these anywhere in the U.S.?
We have those in Britain.
Mixed ethnicity democracies tend to be crooked for what might be called the Lee Kwan Yew-FDR reason: You can't afford to vote out a corrupt SOB of your own group because while he might be an SOB, he's your SOB and -- at an admittedly high cost -- he protects you against the other guys' SOBs.
Shhhhh! Keep it to yourself, but the people are starting to realize that you can replace the corrupt members of your own group with (hopefully) less corrupt versions, by using something called a "primary." See McCain/Hayworth, Specter/Sestak, Bennett/Lee, etc., etc.
And the politicians and their lapdogs in the press are absolutely pissed about it.
Columbus came from a family of Sephardic conversos. When "Holland" contacted the East Indies, it was full of Jews who had emigrated from Iberia in the wake of the Inquisition. When the British empire expanded, Jews like Disraeli and Reuter were at the forefront.
Zero proof that Columbus came from such a family, and the British expansion began well before Jews were allowed back into Britian - notably the Jamestown, Plymouth, and Massachusetts Bay colonies.
But someone had to go out and conquer to establish the kind of world community and the globalist trade we have.
No no, there's no karmic payment for creating the modern world. Just lots of irony and LULZ at the plight of its creators. No blaming, of course...
"Mixed ethnicity democracies tend to be crooked for what might be called the Lee Kwan Yew-FDR reason: You can't afford to vote out a corrupt SOB of your own group because while he might be an SOB, he's your SOB and -- at an admittedly high cost -- he protects you against the other guys' SOBs."
It's excessive modesty for Americans to credit LKY for this. Surely ethnic democratic politics was invented in the 19thC US (then the world's only democracy) as soon as large-scale White ethnic immigration began? Specifically the Irish developed a brilliant understanding of how to use the American political system to benefit themselves collectively at the expense of the Anglos, rapidly displacing the American-born Protestants of Tammany who thought they could use the immigrants. Subsequent White ethnic groups in the US just imitated the Irish as well as they could, but for some reason the Irish were always better at it.
The point being that for this purpose "multi-ethnic" need not mean "multi-racial".
A major factor that has prevented Flanders from becoming independent is that the Walloons have made it clear that they would veto Flanders's entry into the E.U. unless Brussels and the surrounding French-speaking municipalities are kept outside of Flanders. Many Flemings consider Brussels to be a historically Flemish city in spite of its French-speaking majority.
Risto
Post a Comment