Jump to content

Talk:Flemish people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Flanders wants to be independent

Link to change by 80.200.248.202 There are people in Flanders who wants Flanders to be indepentent. But that does not mean that "Flanders wants to be independent". Also, can you think of a place on earth where humans live and you can not find some persons who wants there part of the world indepentent? I have removed it and also on the page Belgium change Giskart Walter 15:08, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This comment was moved from Talk:Fleming, because it was made at the time that the "Flemish people" article was at the title "Fleming". Graham87 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

old comment

..."they are a distinctly different people with a different culture and would take offence at being called Dutchmen..." Perhaps the differences might be elucidated, since to an outsider the main difference seems to be in parochial vs. international outlooks, and degree of toleration towards outsiders. Wetman 08:20, 26 August 2004 (UTC)

Language vs Dialect

I'm not sure why Flemmish is so often described as a dialect of Dutch. I thought that because writing in "Flemmish" initially spread from Flanders northward, that technically and according to the science of linguistics, Dutch must be considered a dialect of Flemmish rather than vice-versa. Even if Belgium uses Dutch as an "official" language, I'm not sure that's enough to strip Flemmish of its title as "the" language of Flemmings and most Nethlerlanders, if Dutch is techically Flemmish dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.102.150 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


What's most accurate & most neutral towards work ethics?

About "Flemish nationalists often portray Walloons as lazy and welfare-dependent), ...", some remarks:

  1. I've tried to find a way of telling it that does only stress something positive, without having to add something negative (which is NOT rfelevant here in this article on Flemings anyway); your way of telling adds a strongly antagonistic message,
  2. that, in addition, is a very crude generalisation (even for the Fkemish ntionalists), and
  3. that denies tha factual evidenc that you can find in any international economic study (which ALL confirms that economic productivity is indeed +/- 20% higher in the Flemish region then in the Walloon region!) --Rudi Dierick 14:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not exclusively Flemish-Nationalists (which is not necessarily the same as Flemish nationalists, inclining towards separatism: part of the Flemish-Nationalist movement concentrated mainly on equal recognition and therefore autonomy - as a large part of the former Volksunie (whose article also mentions Flemish nationalist) and still today in the political party Spirit; currently only the NVA and Vlaams Belang party strive for breaking up the nation, as in one of the latter's mottos: België Barst inherited from its former incarnation Vlaams Blok)... A large majority of the people in Flanders see the Walloons as less hard-working (which is not exactly or necessarily 'lazy' because the Flemish are perceived as very productive - perhaps a little Stakhanov-ish) and undeniably to a higher degree dependent on welfare; not all that many Walloons clearly deny such though rather try to claim historical reasons, e.g. the earlier and thus unhealthier and sooner out-of-date industries. On the other hand, the once perhaps for a higher percentage diseased Walloons passed from health-care towards retirement a long time ago while the once in the still strong period of life did not all live to be eighty-six; and the much later shutting-down of Flemish coal mines has already largely been recovered from, whereas Wallonia had ample more time trying - often if not entirely helped by national (read: for 70 percent by the nation's 60 percent Flemish taxpayers) financial funding - against all ensurances without any improvement, giving little hope and thus Flemish patience any more. This explains why the CVP that had for a long time been the largest party in Flanders, traditionally not commonly regarded as Flemish-Nationalist, since the institutionalization of the regions has been profiling itself as strongly pulling the Flemish card, became CD&V, and formed an allience with the Flemish-Nationalist NVA party. Even social-democrats in Flanders would not accept their SP.a party supporting the general course of action of the 'sister' party PS, for ages the largest in Wallonia. SomeHuman 03:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Burgundian?

There is a reference to Flemings being more "Burgundian" in some ways, but no way to know why that is or how that can be found to be true. Can someone expand on it?

L.A.F.

The phrase "Burgundian" is used in Flanders, as well as in the Dutch provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg, to explain a certain lifestyle. Living a "Burgundian lifestyle" means that one - generally - stands more relaxed in life, loves good food (and drinks, notably beer), and is more open, frivolous and exuberant. There is a strong connection between "Burgundian" and Roman Catholicism, especially in the Netherlands, where a (Roman Catholic) Burgundian lifestyle in the (historically strongly Catholic) provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg is opposed to the (Calvinistic Protestant) more sober lifestyle of the Dutch living "above the rivers" (north of the rivers Rhine, Waal and Meuse). The Burgundian lifestyle is considered to be closer to the "Latin" lifestyles in the southern, Catholic part of Europe (in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal). Nowadays however, my personal opinion is that the "Burgundian lifestyle" is used more as an identification layer to differ oneself to others, than that it is a true way of life. More in the Netherlands than in Flanders has it become more and more a hollow phrase, whereas true differences between the historically Catholic and Protestant regions of the Netherlands have greatly diminished.
Whether it is true or not that Flemings are "Burgundian" - that depends on what definition you use when you are talking about a "Burgundian lifestyle" and what your personal experiences are with Flemish people. Town people differ from village people. My personal opinion (as a Dutchman living close to the border with Belgium) is that many Flemish people can indeed be classified as "Burgundian", using the definition given above. Rick86
  • When the animals could still talk, Belgians politicians spoke French, and there was no European Market, there was the saying When it pours in Paris, it drips in Brussels. Thus the French gastronomical culture was well taken by the Walloons. These still consume more butter and fattish sauses than the inhabitants of the undisputably most Burgundian city in Flanders, Mechelen. The Flemish spend a lot more time enjoying their food than the Dutch. The English do not even enjoy it at all, though they may pay more for it than the Scots, who eat even richer than the French, Walloons, or Flemish. Thus from now on let it be heard: The Scots are the World's Greatest Burgundians. -- SomeHuman 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions for a complete rewrite

I think the current article about 'Flemings' should be completely rewritten. Some suggestions for this:

In my opinion, an objective and informative article about 'Flemings' and their identity should outline the history and present of an emerging nationality. In short: a Fleming is an inhabitant of Flanders, which is a 'pars pro toto' denoting the 6 million ethnically Dutch people inhabiting the northern part of Belgium.

Longer: Flemings belong to the larger Dutch cultural sphere in Europe. Early history includes their basic origin, which is Germanic through Frankish invasions (with a link to Germanic_peoples). It should mention medieval times (Middle Empire of Lotharingia, Flemish and Brabant cities and their wealth, origins of liberty, ...) and explain the original meaning of the word Fleming (inhabitant of the County of Flanders). The historical catalysts that led to the emergence of "Flemings" as a separate ethnic group are:

  1. the events of the sixteenth century that separated Northern from Southern provinces;
  2. rule by a series of foreign powers; most notably the occupation by revolutionary French forces, which inspired and aroused strong and lasting pro-French sentiments in many circles;
  3. the creation of Belgium as a unitary state imposing French culture, and the ethnical tensions that resulted from this;
  4. the rediscovery of Dutch roots as a reaction against this (largely in 19th century but continuing today);
  5. the continuing failure of Belgium in fundamentally resolving these tensions (this is objective: it is a fact that can be observed by reading newspapers and makes no reference to the future).

It should mention or link to the Flemish Movement as a broad avant-garde movement that was a powerful exponent in forming todays Flanders. It should also mention that Flemish culture and Flanders as a brand is rapidly growing beyond the Flemish Movement. Indeed, many self-aware Flemings and things that would today be considered as "typical" for Flemish culture, have no affiliation with this movement at all.

I agree with the current article that relations with other Dutch people should be mentioned, as long as it is done a bit more seriously and less anecdotal than it is done now. It should include the various official and unofficial institutions of cooperation; the fact that identification is strongest with the southern provinces and border zones of the Netherlands. And yes, if you must: similarities and differences in dialect, and of course the folkloristic rivalry with the inhabitants of Holland proper.

I also suggest that contemporary political issues, including the political expression of secessionism (Vlaams Belang etc), should be mentioned on separate pages since they are not crucial to an article about a "Fleming". In fact, being a- or even anti-political might be seen as a important part of Flemish character ;-)

Finally, a list of famous Flemings and Flemish expats from past and present might be handy, so people from all over the world can find out for themselves what "being a Fleming" means. -- 84.194.93.87 2005-07-06 (signature and date introduced ad hoc)

Anglo-Saxon vs. Latin styles of decision-making?

Does this seem a bit biased, culturally speaking, to anyone? Borders, it seems on stereotyping, and calls the author's neutrality into question

absolutley! This section is a complete discredit to the article as a whole. Not only does it fairly ooz with PoV, but it is also filled with a plethera of cultural stereotypes. Fergus mac Róich 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Each individual sways between individualism, nationalism (or feeling part of a distinguishable group of any size), and univeral globalism. Thus some stereotyping will be inevitable, and not necessarily false. The problem arises only when (the need of) feeling proud of one's personal merits or these of a group one feels part of, leads to regarding other persons or groups as less noteworthy or quickly find them less respectful for one's values.
  • The urge to speak Gaelic, Scots or Cornish (versus the English language), or to keep the Euro out of Britain, so as to become or remain recognized as a distinguishable entity – just like Flemish, Dutch, Walloon, Belgian, European,... – does not need to indicate the will to be completely separated from a larger group (or to have more authonomy); or even if it does, to become an enemy of those one wishes to separate from.
  • One should always keep in mind that the more one feels 'distinguished' (instead of just distinguishable from others), the less sufficiently one tends to recognize the merits of others – while it would be extremely unlikely to be born in precisely that uniquely exclusive group. A group expressing its unique qualities insistingly, will be picked upon by the other groups; the more unfair the one, the more vindictively resilient the others.
  • Now for the Anglo-Saxon versus Latin style: until recently one held northern European (speaking germanic languages) versus southern European (speaking romanic languages) of which the typical cultural elements are called Latin. Today, there is a larger influence by the culture from the US, often supported by Britain, thus referred to as Anglo-Saxon. This is not some biased feeling but is based on very real differences, for instance on views on welfare, economics, privacy, the extent of freedom of press, standards for bookkeeping, justicial matters, and so on. It changes life in continental northern Europe and disputable choices need to be made; this explains why one may more often hear or read about Anglo-Saxon or Latin styles now than a few decades ago. And yes, even the styles of negotiating, communicating about, and actually making decicions, are far from identical.
  • Should we mention cultural stereotypes or pretend these are fata morganas? Say, if a continental northern European, used to negotiate with a verbose Latin culture, deals with an Anglo-Saxon style direct negotiater without taking the latter's background into account: deeply offended, he might simply turn his back – I'm afraid the Iraqi did so with nuclear inspectors and we see where it got Saddam.
SomeHuman 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious proportions

The protestant minority hasn't been large anywhere in Belgium since the 80 Years War caused their exodus north. The 1995 figures for Belgium (Flanders always was the most Catholic part) from Britannica Book of the Year 2000 say 87% Catholic, Muslim 2.5%, 1% Protestant; even these numbers actually flatter the Christian proportion, since many people still call themselves say Catholic simply when they use that rite for the great Rites of Passage as marriage and burial, every survey and even the primate (Cardinal on TV) confirm faith is actually become minoritary, vocations down so badly the clergy in in view of extinction (as a former lector, I once was involved in counting) Fastifex 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Were talking about Flemish people, not Belgians (including migrants). Ksenon 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Flemish parliament and all prevailing legislation (including European and federal Belgian) most legal immigrants (others excluded from all counts anyway) are Flemish- as there is almost no new immigration since decades most 'allochthones' are born in Flanders (including Brussels, which has the highest concentration). As Flemings make up the majority of Belgians, and remain the most catholic part of the country, Belgian stats can only underestimate the Catholic majority, not affect the proportions. For all of Belgium, protestantism has been a tiny majority for centuries since the Habsburg persecution of non-Catholics, the only significant evolyutions are secularisation and (lesser) relative rise of the 'exotic' minorities. Arcarius 07:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_minorites=be-flan Ksenon 08:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I read nothing there about any non-catholic minority- at least that site thus is not an utter lie, just irrelevant. Of course Arabs (and Turks, as well as other Germanic, Romance, Slavic and even non-European minorities, in many cases predominantly of a non-Catholic faith) do become Flemish (as opposed to illegals)- not the first generation perhaps, but by now most are born Flemish citizens and educated in Flemish schools, free to practice their religion, in the case of Islam or Orthodoxy even enjoy state subsidy for these offically recognised cults; fortunately most are even willing to integrate themselves, but even those that are to dumb or unwilling to do so are (be it 'bad') Flemings. One may like it or not (there is a lare minority party catering for the 'purist' taste) but that is the cultural price -loss of homogenity- most modern democrarcies pay for hospitable immigration laws, freedom of religion etcetera; whether it's worth it is a political appreciation, I won't go into as it's irrelevant here, but given traety obligations (at UN and Euripean level) it just can't be changed any more. Nor is the link between ethnicity and religion automatical- there actually are some conversions from either background to the other religion, including autochthonous Muslims; and some oriental immigrants came to Europe precisely because they belonged to Christian churches, such as the Iraqi Chaldeans. And good luck explaining to the (US, and for that matter Canadian) Americans they are less then a million (Indians and Inuit) or none (even these immigrated from Asia once) by your apparent 'reasoning'! If you can't live with the full truth being told, then at least be so consistent as to leave out all religious minorties, but pretending a sole and 'large' Protestant minority is the true revisionism, which I as Flemish historian can NEVER allow: a 17th-century situation that won't reoccur in the foreseeable future. Fastifex 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Youre mixing up political correctness with reality. A second generation African immigrant is not of the Flemish ethnic group, though he may be politically. Ksenon 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you should rename the article Ethnic Flemings(which would be nonsens since there are no longer "pure ethnic" people). The Flemish PEOPLE are ALL the Belgians living in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium and the people in Brussels who choose a Identity Card in the Dutch Language. New Flemings belong to the Flemish people.

That belongs in the demographics of Belgium article, if you want to characterize the entire nation. Politics does not belong in the Wiki. Ksenon 15:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing political about the fact that the Flemish people are all the People with Belgian Nationality in the Dutch speaking part(Flanders) and the ones in Brussels who choose a Dutch languaged ID-Card, it just is the truth.

Get your head out of your ass, and read the first sentence of the article. ("This article is about the Flemish as an ethnic group." (emph. mine)) Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not Flemings, and will never be. Being Flemish is not about having it say so on a scrap of paper. Valdoran 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslims with the Belgian nationality living in Flanders belong to the Flemish people. Therefor Islam is an important religious minority.

Same reply as above. Valdoran 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The ethnicity of the Flemish as expressed in the article's introduction, is an exaggeration of what makes the Flemish the people they typically are. In Brussels, in large offices where thousands of employees with about as many Walloons as Flemish work together, one cannot possibly guess the origin by appearance. Ethnically there is no difference. Culturally, both groups are more easily distinguished. The history of the area that is now Belgium has caused a mix of many West European people. Thus not the ethnicity but rather a degree of integration causes a feeling of belonging to and being accepted as Flemish in the sense of this article. Many of the Italians that where the earliest so-called gastarbeiders (guest workers [in industry]), arriving in the 1950s and 1960s, and their children and grandchildren are in most ways as Flemish as anyone. The immigrants from typically Muslim countries came later and still remain usually perceived as immigrants, regardless whether their children were born in Flanders or not, and regardless the nationality. On the other hand, most people in Flanders realize that these 'guest workers' will never leave and those who do not want a permanent segregation (like formerly 'apartheid' in South Africa) will not accept pushing Muslims in one corner and Catholics (or the less than 10% of Flemish people that go to mass every weekend) in another corner. As far as today's religions are mentioned, one cannot use 'ethnicity' or 'culture' or 'integration' as a defining factor to be Flemish: percentages of religions and other philosophies are typically a characteristic regarded for the people living in the geographical circumscription of Flanders (and, if statistics would be available, the Dutch speaking community in Brussels). The historically dominant religion, Roman Catholicism, however, and the persecution of Protestants, have had a large influence on the present-day culture of the Flemish people. — SomeHuman 7 Sep2006 18:43 (UTC)

Way Too Much Flemish people

I consider myself Flemmish but I don't think we are with 15.000.000 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.220.51 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

this list includes people in other countries with flemish roots or ethnic flemings in neighbouring countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.198.232 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Current meaning

Almost no one in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen or French Flanders or other parts of the world consider themselves Flemings. As a people is constructed by a shared idea, as there is not something as a natural (genetical) identity, only the 6 million Dutch speaking inhabitans of Belgium are Flemings. I therefore propose to limit this page to those people and only refer to the other meanings in a seperate section. 134.58.253.131 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Limiting the definition to its present use would be unencyclopaedic, even if it were outdated in modern speech. Furthermore there are many Flemish people l.s. with a stronger sense of history, quite numerous in French Flanders, where anything not 100% French was for centuries oppressed but since Mitterrand again allowed to blossom; in Zeeland that is probably different. ~~


The "Two" meanings are "Flemish people"

There are two meaning of "Flemish people". In Belgium Flemings are a people, recognized in culture and instutitions.(See for instance: Flemish parliament, Flemish government, etc.) This term has only a vague historic connection with the other meaning of Flemish people. Therefore it is necessary to seperate those two meanings. Efforts to negate the current more dominant meaning of Flemish people is not NPOV. See also the page of Macedonians. There is also a difference between historic Macedonians and current Macedonians, and only the current Macedonians are mentioned in the ethnic group table. (Mostly) historic Flemings should not be confused with the more dominant current meaning: the people in Flanders (Belgium). Therefore the difference should be highlighted. I do not wish to negate the other meaning, on the contrary, but there just are two different meanings for the same word. 134.58.253.131 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See also the Wikipedia definition of ethnic group: An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community. It looks quite obvious to me that Flemings in Belgian Flanders constitute an ethnic group, a people, because they identify eachother as Fleming. These Flemings do not regard Northern French or South Western Dutch as Flemings. Therefore, there are two meanings of Flemish people. 134.58.253.131 23:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

and that's were you're wrong. The people living in northern france are flemings just like the people in belgian flanders. If you look at the hungarian people article you see the same, the ethnic hungarians in neighbouring countries are included in the list. Therefore i believe that the ethnic flemings in northern france should be included in the flemish people list as well! so my opinion is that there is only one meaning of flemish people just as there is only one of irish people, french people, hungarian people,...

No you are wrong. Ethnic groups are defined by shared thoughts (most of the times based on shared characteristics, like culture, language, etc.), not by genetics. If people do not share that thought, they do not form an ethnic group. (Just read the Wikipedia definition). If an American from Irish descent considers himself Irish (and an (Irish) Irish consider him Irish), he is Irish. Hungarians in the neighbouring countries are considered Hungarian (they also share same culture, language, etc.) by Hungarians in Hungary and consider themselves Hungarian also. So they share those thoughts, they identify each other as Hungarian. Flemings do not regard those particular French or Dutch people as Flemings, so they do not constitute an ethnic group (and rarely do those peoples consider themselves to be Flemings and they also have a different culture, history, etc. and in the case of France another language also). Furthermore, I do not negate the more wide historic meaning of Flemish people (as people in that time shared that thought) nor did I ever remove it. I kindly ask you to stop removing the other definition of Flemish people. Thank you. Note also that words can shift in meaning, for example the term 'Macedonian people' doesn't mean the same as 2000 years ago. Does that mean that the wider definition should be ignored? NO! But should the more modern meaning be mentioned also? Of course! 134.58.253.131 18:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

who says that the flemings in france do not consider themselfs to be flemings? In fact flemish is spoken by a large group of people in northern france. Plus, the number also takes into account people of flemish descent (descendants of flemish migrants around 1900). Just admit that you are a left-wing belgicist that tries to minimize the being Flemish

No, I'm a moderate Flemish nationalist in fact, and right-wing in the sense of being for a minimal state (minimal rules, minimal state intervention and low taxes). But we have to be realistic. Flemings in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen consider themselves Dutch, and the few people in France that do feel Flemish do not constitute 3 million Flemings. Moreover: 7.5 million Flemings in Belgium? We all know that isn't true. When a Flemish decendant speaks French and he doesn't feel connected to the Flemish identity anymore, he isn't Flemish anymore and he isn't recognized anymore as such. If you can prove by hard statistics a number of real Flemings in France, you can add it. As long as you can't, I will keep this page up to an ecyclopedic article. 134.58.253.131 11:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Flemish ethnicity. Whether people consider themselfs to be Fleming or not doesn't matter. Do you really believe that the millions of people in Brazil of Italian descent still see themselfs as Italians? Ofcourse not. If we take into account the +- 600.000 Flemings that migrated to France around 1900 + the ethnic Flemings in the north, then a estimate of 3 million is rather low i guess. All the other peoples articles are about ethnicity and you're making this an article about "shared thoughts". That seems wrong. The 7.500.000 in belgium is a fair estimate. As a result of Flemish migration to Wallonia, now around 40% of the people in Wallonia have a Flemish last name + add the 300.000 recent Flemings in Wallonia and that the french speakers in Brussels are mostly Frenchified Flemings, you come to the 7.5 million.

As I'm trying to explain: ethnicity is created by shared thoughts (= members identify eachother), most of the times based on shared characteristics (though sometimes the internal differences are bigger than the external differences with other cultures). This is a page about an ethnic group. Just read the definition of Wikipedia or any academic definition of ethnicity. Ethnicity is not something genetic and even similar cultures don't need to generate an ethnicity. When people identify eachother as an ethnic group, it becomes one. People in Brussels (except the 15% Flemings) do not regard themselves as Fleming, and are not identified as such by Flemings, so they aren't Flemings. (And don't underestimate the Brazilian Italians, many do consider themselves Italian (and Brazilian) and are identified as such by others) 134.58.253.131 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What I would propose is the solution they used on the French people page. Make a list of the current Flemings, supported by facts (references)per country (=statistics in which people identify themselves as Flemings) and make a list of people that have Flemish ancestry. Sijo Ripa 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, very bad comparison as the French people page is only a result of confusing French Republican government policies and denial of ethnic groups within its borders. Flemish citizens/nationals are different from ethnic Flemings and those descended from ethnic Flemings. Walloons who happen to live in Flemish areas are still considered Walloon and not ethnic Flemish. The so-called "modern" definition of ethnic Flemish in Flanders is included in the "historic" one, which is the proper ethnic designation. For information on citizens, residents, or nationals of Flanders, one can see Demographics of Belgium. Epf 14:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One Million Flemish In The Netherlands?

The article states that the Netherlands is home to some one million Flemish people. I strongly object to such a number. The number of people identifying as Belgians (including Flemish, but also Walloons and others) in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Census Bureau (CBS), is 112,000 (January 2005). Using the CBS methods, this number includes also Dutch-born children of Belgian parents. Even if we assume that all the 112,000 Belgians in the Netherlands are in fact Flemish, that leaves another 888,000 persons - according to this article - who are not Flemish according to the Census Bureau, but do self-identify als Flemish. My question is: where are they? It would be wrong to assume that all the people in Zeeuws-Vlaanderen are Flemish, and self-identify as Flemish. And even if so, the total population of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen is just 108,000 - still leaving a gap of 780,000 unidentified Flemish in the Netherlands.

I think the point is: what people can be identified als Flemish? The ones who self-identify as Flemish, or the ones who 'are' Flemish by heritage (by having Flemish ancestors)? I believe etnicity is based on self-identification. Using that method, the number of Flemish in the Netherlands is far and far lower than the number given of 1,000,000. Rick86 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone with some reason. I try to make that clear for the last weeks that moest Dutch and French descendants do not consider themselves as Flemings and that therefore aren't. 134.58.253.131 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. However I do find it strange that right now in the infobox we see numbers of Flemish people in the world (in australia, canada etc) but NOT in The Netherlands. It seems natural to me that there would be more Flemish people in The Netherlands than in Canada. Clearly nowhere near the 1 million mark, but still a significant amount. I don't have any exact figures here so I won't make any changes in the article. But it seems to me that outside of Belgium, The Netherlands would have amongst the highest number of Flemish people living there. (because of geographic and cultural proximity) --Lamadude (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not genetical/racial

Ethnicity is not something genetical. When people migrate and the following generations assimilate the dominant culture of their new land lose their older culture, they lose their older ethnical identity. The only way to measure how many ethnic Flemings there are besides in Flanders is self-identification. 134.58.253.131 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Flemings speak Dutch

Anyone familiar with Flanders and Flemings knows Flemings speak Dutch. For instance the Flemish movement found its origin in striving for more recognition and protection of Flemish (Dutch). Another example: though many people that live in Brussels are from Flemish descent, once they speak French they are not longer considered Flemish. That's even institionalized: The Flemish community takes care of the culture and education of the Dutch speaking inhabitants of Brussels (= the Flemings), and the French Community of Belgium takes care of the francophone. 134.58.253.131 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Flemish is indeed not a seperate language, but rather a group of Dutch dialects spoken in Dutch-speaking Flanders. However, as a Dutchman I can say that there can be a huge difference between these dialects themselves. When I visit the Belgian Kempen, there is absolutely no difficulty in understanding the local population. However, when you move to the southern parts of Flanders, as well as to the Dutch-speaking communities near the Francophone parts of Belgium, the dialects are very difficult to understand when you compare them to standard Dutch. Rick86 20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean, but they still speak Dutch/Flemish and not French. (I'm from those regions btw. Mostly older people speak dialect and that dialect is indeed influenced to a certain extent by French words, but it's still a Flemish form of Dutch) 134.58.253.131 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not deny that these dialects are not part of the Dutch language; I do want to show that Dutch is very diverse, and that some of the Flemish dialects are almost unintelligible for - for example - a Dutchman like me.
This discussion does leave questions how the look at Afrikaans (recognized as a seperate language) and Limburgish (recognized as a minority language by the European Union) Rick86 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Limburgish is in fact a language that is spoken by Flemings, so it could be added as a language. (I will do that in a minute) 134.58.253.131 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

6 million Flemings in Belgium

Every source, ranging from the Brittanica to the site of a Flemish nationalist party [1] says that there are about 6 million Flemings. That number includes the Flemings in Brussel... Furthermore, (1) Francophones in Brussel do not consider themselves Flemish. (2) That's also the reason why Brussel is not part of the Flemish Region. Because there are Flemings in Brussels (about 150 000, included in the 6million), education and culture, etc are governed by the Flemish Community, while that of French speakers is done by the French Community of Belgium. 134.58.253.131 18:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of people in Flanders already reaches 6 million, so following your warped view then adding the 200,000 Flemings totals 6 million??

Not all people living in Flanders are Flemish, anonymous user. That is, not when we are using the definition used in the article, that of (probably) Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Belgium who are not considered to be of foreign origin by the Belgian Census, and/or those people in Belgium who self-identify as being Flemish. Rick86 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Demographics of Belgium, 58% of some 10.3 million Belgians are identified as Flemings. This translates into some 6.0 million Flemish Belgians. Rick86 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Anon, I said: the 150 000 are included in the 6 million. This means that in Flanders there live about 5,85 million Flemings and in Brussels about 0,15 million. Possibly there are a few thousands more, or less. The point is that there aren't 7 million Flemings, but "about" 6 million. 134.58.253.131 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
These numbers appear out-of-date. According to official figures, the Flemish Region alone has already over 6.050.000 inhabitants. Adding an estimated 150.000 Flemings living in Brussels gives a total number of Flemings of +/- 6.200.000. Why not just give both figures in the table; one for the inhabitants of the region, and then an estimated number for all Flemings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.190.210 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A Lot Of Editing Going Around Here

In the last hour, the number of Flemings table has been edited quite some times (included by me). I believe there needs to be a consensus on the number of Flemish within Belgium as well as outside Belgium. I propose the following numbers:

- 6,000,000 (approximately) in Belgium (using the Demographics of Belgium)

- 110,000 in Canada (see the following link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000650). There is also a user who reports in the References part that there are some 11,000 Canadians who have stated 'Flemish' as their (single of one of multiple) ancestry (ancestries) in the Canadian Population Census.

- 100,000 - 120,000 in The Netherlands, using the total number of Belgians residing in The Netherlands (some 112,000, see Demographics of the Netherlands) and assuming that most of these are from Flanders because of their closeness to the Dutch (compared to the Walloons, the Francophone part of Belgium).

- No more than 350,000 in the United States. That is the number of people stating they are Belgium American in the 2000 United States Census (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-35.pdf). Of course this also includes a lot of Walloons, so it isn't a very accurate number. I do not know how many of these Belgian Americans also identify as being Flemish - in the 1990 United States Census I was able to find that some 14,000 Americans identify as Flemish (8,600 as single ancestry, 5,500 as one of multiple ancestries) (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp-s/cp-s-1-2.pdf). Rick86 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Proposal

Why don't we divide the table in two parts. First part includes the known numbers of current Flemings, identified by references about self-identification. The other part of the table refers to ancestry. 134.58.253.131 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All the other articles about ethnic groups are about ancestry, why are you making this the only article about self identification. Go fuck up the page about dutch people that states that there are 5 million dutch people in south africa. Cuz they don't identify themsefls as dutch!! go mess up the article about basque people, irish people, italian people,... that all use ancestry to estimate the number of people. But leave this article as it is. I know tyhat u radical left people don't want Flemings to be proud of their ethnicity. For u guys its all about that artificial bullshit called belgium

Because that's the definition of ethnic group. Just read the definition, or any other academic definition. Ethnicity is not genetical heritage, but cultural heritage that is recognized in self-identification. That's not messing up, that's improving. It is not because other pages make that mistake, that this page should. 134.58.253.131 12:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Another remark: a lot of Irish and Italian in the US or Brazil do identify thelmselves to be Irish and Italian (as well as American/Brazilian/...), and they still have a lot of customs etc. from these countries. This has the consequence that they are ethnic Irish and Italians. 134.58.253.131 13:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user: you will see in the talk page about the Dutch ethnic group that the number of 5,000,000 Afrikaners is also adressed as being unaccurate. I do not see how adressing this issue is "fucking up" the article. Most articles are indeed wrong when you look at the numbers given (just as the user above me says), as they are based on ancestry, which is not something which necessarily makes an ethnic group. Just look at the definition of ethnicity used in Anthropology. I don't see how my political affiliation is of any matter in this.
Flemings can be as proud of their ancestry as they want. But do you really believe that a great-grandchild of a Flemish immigrant in the United States is still part of the Flemish nation, when this great-grandchild does not identify itself in any way with that region on the Old Continent, Flanders? Should I start calling my fellow Dutchmen Batavii because of their ancestry? Rick86 14:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Flemish Template?

I think we should make a Flemish template: Flemish people, Flanders, Flemish Region, Flemish Community, Vlaamse Leeuw, Flemish history, Flemish primitives, etc. Anyone agrees?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijo Ripa (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers South Africa & Australia

Could someone give the direct link to the numbers of South Africa and Australia?== Thanks. 134.58.253.131 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

to Epf

What ethnic group means: "a human population whose members identify with each other". This is "usually" on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. The key answer is thus "identify eachother", while the "usually" points to what the most common basis of identification. This however does not mean that ancestry is enough, if they are not identified as such by others. Other factors can lead to such an identification, which could even exclude ancestry. 134.58.253.131 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no point here, there are other aspects to Flemish ethnicity besides speaking the Flemish dialect of Dutch. There are thousands of Flemish speakers in Belgium who are NOT ethnic Flemings since they are not of aboriginal ethnic Flemish origin, and may not have other ethnic traits such as behavioural, cultural or religious traits. Flemish are identified as such not just by language, obviously, as it is not a sole marker of ethnicity since it is something that is easily learned or un-learned by anyone from anywhere of any ethnic origin. Epf 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said that language was the only marker. It's one of the markers, which has as implication that you are not identified as a Fleming when you speak French. Speaking Flemish however is not enough to be identified as a Fleming. 134.58.253.131 00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw: when you are of foreign origin (your grandgrandparents for instance), but you have lost the foreign culture and you fully assimilated Flemish culture, he's Flemish as ethnicity. And also: you can have multiple ethnicities at the same time. 134.58.253.131 00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have sources I posted earlier in the article which speak of how there are ethnic Flemings who live in Wallonia and either speak both Flemish and French/Walloon or solely French/Walloon, et still of of Flemish ethnicity and origin. You may be considered to have many aspect of Flemish culture for those immigrants, but they are not considered ethnic Flemings if they have no ethnic Flemish origins or family and unless they have such would not be able to fully assimilated into Flemish ethniccity. Genrally, it takes more generations and inter-mixing with ethnic Flemings (or any other group) to assimilate most ethnic traits. One who is of non-Flemish ethnic origins can never be fully be assimilated into Flemish ethnicity, according to what ethnicity is widely deifned as. Epf 00:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


If an immigrant is identified as a Fleming and he identifies himself as such, whether or not he has retained certain traits, he's a Fleming. It's about identification by others. 134.58.253.131 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

it is about both slef-identification AND identificaiton by others and that person may be identified as a Fleming (in term of nationality/citizenship) but not as an ethnic fleming of flemish descent. Also, that person more commonly would refer to themselves as both Fleming and also what their ethnic origin is. Ethnicity is something that is inherited, not somethin you can choose, and definitely not something you can choose on a whim like knowing a language. Epf 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

look, i have more important things to do for now, I will be back to resolve this at a later time. Epf 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to resolve. I would just ask to read the definition again. If you read the definition, you can read "a human population whose members identify with each other". If I feel as an American and other Americans consider me an American, I'm an American. In a certain way, you can chose your ethnicity. Extremely difficult, as it's very hard to convince others (subtle nuances in language, behaviour, etc) but possible. And btw there is a difference in nationality and citizenship. He would have the Flemish nationality, but therefore not Flemish citizenship. If an American has a grandgrandparent that was Fleming, that does not make him a Fleming. He should identify himself and should be identified by Flemings as a Fleming. If he doesn't speak and act as a Fleming, it's almost impossible to be able to let other people identify you as a Fleming. I doubt that there are a million Americans who can speak Flemish for instance...134.58.253.131 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the definition of an ethnic group, ethnicity would be nearly impossible to choose, at least until we reach the point where we can alter our genetic make-up. You can't change many aspects of who you are and where you come from. The most important factor in the identification of someones ethnicity is that of a common origin/shared genealogy. This shared ancestry leads to numerous traits which are passed down through each generation whether they be genetic/physical, cultural, behavioural, familial, religious, etc. and take quite a long time for an individual to "lose". No offence, but you sound quite ridiculous by saying you can choose your ethnicity and that it is not inherited. If someone only has one great grandparent who was an ethnic Fleming, he/she would still attribute 1/8 of their ancestry to that person, and however many traits have survived from that ancestor varies from person to person. It is important to note however, that for most of the million who claim such Flemish ethnic origins in the US and Canada, it is generally more than 1/8 ancestry in most cases. Nationality and citizenship are not the exact same thing but they are indeed quite similar in meaning and generally when someone is granted citizenship of a country, they are also considered a national of such. The most important factor you need to realize here is that ethnicity is something which is inherited, not something that is simply chosen or that can easily be lost due to where someone resides. The term "Fleming" may mean someone who can speak the Flemish dialect of Dutch, but, it also (and in this article) is referring to those who are ethnic Flemings and descended from this ethnic group native to Flanders. You can complain all you want, but I am telling you from not only the widely held belief of most everyday people, but also from an academic standpoint in the field of anthropology. Epf 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And as I said it's almost impossible to chose an ethnicity, but it's possible. Ethnicity however is not genetical, and yes it is most of the times inherited, but not genitically... it's more or less cultural, but even that isn't a good indicator, as you can have the same culture, but not the same ethnicity, only because others don't identify you as such. (See Bosnia for instance). But having one grandgrandparent does not make one an ethnic Fleming, unless the person assimilated the whole ethnicity during childhood (for instance) and is considered a Fleming. Perhaps there are some Flemings in the USA, but 1 million is absurd. I doubt that they all speak and act like Flemings. I don't doubt that their ancestry can be partially Flemish. I think we just misunderstood eachother: I know everyone assimilates the culture and language etc from its environment (parents, family, school, etc). Once you move to the USA however, your grandchildren will be socialized in the new American environment and most likely won't be Flemings anymore (lost the language, the typical habits, etc). 134.58.253.131 05:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am assured you are partially incorrect here. Ethnicity is primarily based on shared ancestry and this manifests itself in traits which are passed down through each generation. These traits are not all "lost" because of the surrounding environment one lives in. Lanugage obviously is first to be influenced since it is easily learned/unlearned, however, cultural, familial, behavioural, religious traits to persist for some generations. The genetic/physical traits generally last the longest, depending on the degree of intermixing with those of differeing ethnic origins. The fact is that it is well documented that over a million people in the US and Canada who have some degree of signficant Flemish ethnic origins and in this case retain the shared origins of Flemish ethnicity as well as varying other traits. You can't argue against the fact that ethnicity is based on common origins/shared ancestry that is inherited and results in various traits, including those which are genetic/physical. Our inherited genetics as well as those who influence us most in childhood (i.e. especially family, but also close friends and others in the community) play a very important factor in how we develop as people in numerous ways (eg. personality/behavioural traits). You should also bear in mind that cultural and familial traditions vary amongst familes of differeing ethnic backgrounds as well. Epf 06:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

USA number

If you are willing to compromise, the 2000 US census stated there were about 360,000 people who claimed "Belgian" ancestry in the US. The numbers for those citing "Other" ancestries is about 81 million and since neither "Flemish" or "Walloon" is on the main census list, it is likely these are included under "Other". Since according to the "Flanders Online" link, 1 million have Flemish roots, some number between 300,000 and 1 million should be agreed upon. How much Flemish ethnicity/ethnic origin those million with Flemish roots have is unknown, and indeed may include people who have only but the smallest of Flemish ancestries. What are your thoughts on this ? Epf 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

About 20 000 people speak Dutch in the US (See: Languages_in_the_United_States#Dutch). As the Flemish (Dutch) language is one of the markers to identify a Fleming, only 20 000 American citizens can be Flemings at most. But this will most likely include Dutch people also. So the number will be lower. I'm willing to compromise and put: "United States: less than 20 000." 134.58.253.131 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That number also includes people who are not even ethnic Flemings or ethnic Dutch. Language is not the main identifier in someones ethnicity and is somethin that again easily crosses diffrent ethnic groups. Descent, culture, and other traits are what mainly consitutes someones ethnic identification and is something inherited that can not be chosen on a whim. It is in a way a reflection of where you come from and ethnic elements take generations and intermingling with other groups to completely "lose". You are simply incorrect in this matter and your "compromise" above is completely ridiculous and obviously unacceptable. Epf 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
As I said myself: that number includes also non-Flemings. I also never said that language is the only identifier, it's one of the many, but it's one (important) marker, one that you inherit by the way. You are not identified as being part of the Flemish "population" if you don't speak Flemish. In that way that inherited language, in combination with other inherited traits, constitute the Flemish ethnicity, as they form the basis of identification by others. If you read the definition of ethnic group carefully, you will notice that "identify eachother" is the necessary component. Even when you have inherited 1/8 (or 1/6, 1/4, etc.) of the traits, that does not necessarily make one part of that ethnic group. Identification by others does. Even slight differences (like in Bosnia by the way) can fundamentally determine whether you are considered included or excluded in a particular ethnic group. As you can be certain that you are not identified as a Fleming when you don't speak Flemish, you can also be certain that the USA number will be "less than 20 000". How much less however is impossible to determine. 134.58.253.131 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are again incorrect here since language crosses ethnic boundaries and is passed down by peoples who are not part of that ethnic group. Your example of the Bosnia infact does support your point since the Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks are all separate ethnic groups but int turn also speak the same Serbo-Croatian language. The definition is not simply identification by others but it is how people are identified by both others and obviously by themselves. One always inherits some amount of ethnic traits, whether it be genotypic/phenotypic, familial, cultural, behavioural, etc. and yes this does include you as part of that ethnicity, especially when you still share signficant common descent/origins. You can be identified as a Fleming without speaking Flemish and the main ethnic identifier is based on descent/ethnic origin as well as other non-linguistic factors such as culture, family traditions, behavioural traits, genotypic/phenotypic traits, etc. The USA number is far greater than 20,000 as is shown with the refernces in the article to the well-documented Flemish emigration to the USA and Canada. This article here [2] shows you the extent of Flemish emigration over the past centuries and there were particularly very large numbers to France as well as the USA. Epf 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep interpreting my comments wrong. As I said: Language is in the case of the Flemish ethnic group one of the important markers. In the case of the Flemish identity language is "one of the" important markers (but not the only one!), as is in most other groups. That does not mean that for every ethnic group it is important, or that you can't have two groups with the same language, or that it is the only important marker. You can very well have an ethnic group where other characteristics dominate. I really don't see how you could read my comment about that wrong. The Bosnia example merely showed that small differences can matter a lot. A small difference can mean you aren't identified anymore as e.g. a Croat or Serbian. This has as a consequence that you can have a few inherited characteristics, but too little to be identified by others as being part of their ethnic community. I advise you to read some academic journals about the topic. Ancestry does not necessarily constitute ethnicity, but it is almost always "one of the" prerequisites. I do not negate that almost all people inherit their ethnicity, inheritance is important, (merely) ancestry isn't. This means that having one grandgrandparent that was Flemish is no guarantee that you identify yourself, or are being identified by others as being part of that ancestral ethnic group. If you really think so, we would all be Congolese or something (as all people descent from African emigrants), or Batavii in the Flemish region, as Rick86 pointed out a while ago. Now acknowledge that the important part is: "identify eachother". Read the definition. It says: ""a human population whose members identify with each other". And you're not identified as a Fleming when you don't speak Flemish, as the Flemish language is an important marker for Flemings to identify eachother. If you would live here, you would agree. Even Dutch people are easily recognized as they speak a bit different, so they are identified as not being Flemish. An important part of Flemish history is based on speaking Flemish. Not hard to understand actually. Is it the only characteristic of being Fleming? Absolutely not. I hope you read my comments right this time and read some academic articles about it. Than you'll see that you've been incorrect all the time... as are many other people here btw. (Just proves again that "majority" does not equal "quality") In the meanwhile, I will preserve the quality of this page. 134.58.253.131 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I have read your comments properly in every case, it is you who seem to be quite confusing here. You admit yourself that language is only one of the markers in ethnic Flemish identity yet somehow you still maintain some ridiculous viewpoint that it is the sole factor in someone being accepted as a Fleming. I don't know if you live there and I don't really care too much to tell you the truth because it has no bearing on this argument whether I, you or anyone else lives there. Studying ethnic groups is one of my main interests and I have read far much more into ethnic origins/ethniccity than you apparently believe, and anthropology is long what I have studied since my days in undergrad. Ancestry is very much a significant part of ethnicity, if not THE most significant part since as the definition of the "ethnic group" states it is primarily based on a presumed common origins/genealogy (i.e. descent). Now you seem to agree that ethnicity is inherited but somehow believe that ethnic origin/ancestry/descent isn't the same thing ? The various ethnic traits associated with ethnicity are inherited from our ancestors and as I said take significant time and intermingling to ever "lose" as I stated earlier. Referring to our "out of Africa" origins has no bearing as that is going back 50,000 - 100,000 years ago and the theory itself even has opponents in the "multi-regional hypothesis" standpoint. We are speaking in terms of common origins/descent within the past 2,000 years or so, varying between groups with some able to trace ethnic origins back longer than others. The biggest flaw in your reasoning here is the fact that you have some pre-conception that those ethnic Flemings outside of Belgium only have the tiniest of ancestries (1/8 or less), but this is NOT the case with most people who identify themselves as ethnic Flemings or of Flemish ethnic origin. Many of them may not speak the language fluently, but all retain varying ethnic traits associated with their common Flemish origins/descent. When people report their primary ethnic origin/ethnicity as Flemish, then they identify themselves at least in part as Flemings and are identified as such by others as well (even if some like yourself may not). Your're discussion is pointless in many parts and you stubbornly refuse to accept valid information/sources for the current correct version of this article. People who are of primarily Flemish ancestry/ethnic origin share much of these inherited ethnic traits and again most who report their primary ethnic origins as such obviously would have much more than merely 1/8 Flemish ancestry. Epf 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you prove that you didn't read my comments right. I quote you: you still maintain some ridiculous viewpoint that it is the sole factor in someone being accepted as a Fleming. For the #th time: It is "one of the factors" = there are more, and you have to fulfill more, but you have to fulfill the language criterion. Prove to me that a million Americans (and Canadians) still possess the important traits of being Fleming, like speaking the Flemish language! "Some inherited traits" is not enough. As I said: language is one of the most important factors, and yet there are at most 20 000 Dutch speakers (and most likely only a minor part of them is really Flemish) in the USA. The Flemish history is full of parts of "speaking Flemish" makes one a Fleming (and those who can't, aren't), going back from at least 1302 when the people that could not pronounce "schild en vriend" in a Flemish way were killed. Other events: collaboration with the Germans during WO I partially for the Flemish language, the language movements, instutionalized language barrier, etc. I'm really curious if you could find many Flemings (or even "one"?) that would say that not being able to speak Flemish, doesn't exclude one from being Flemish. Crossing "ancestry" in a box does not mean that you inherited the necessary traits for being Flemish, it just means that you know that your grandgrandparents were from a particular ethnic group. If you could give me references that prove that they are recognized as Flemings by Flemings, or inherited the important traits (like the language), I would gladly accept these references. (Btw, I'm sorry If you get irritated, that's not my intention, my intention however is to have a good page about the Flemish people) 134.58.253.131 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

you once said here that we shouldn't underestimate the Italians in America. You then said that if one identifies himself as Italian he is Italian. For example in the US, around 16 million do so. SO far no problem. But now if it comes to Flemish people, language is a factor to, cuz then if we transpone this to the US, less than one million speak Italian. So, according to you then, we should change the number of Italians in the US to one million? that doesn't make sense. it feels like as if you want to destroy this page cuz you know just as well that founding sources of Flemings by country who identify as Flemish is impossible, first cuz many countries don't have a census which questiones people for their ethnicity, and second, since Flemings don't have a country of their own, the numbers one would find make reference of "belgians".

You really don't understand the concept ethnicity. Many people in Brazil consider themselves Italian and are recognized by Italians as Italians (see voting rights for Itlaian parliament, etc.). Many people in the US consider themselves Irish and are considered so by Irish. That's with many ethnic groups the case. I can you give many examples that the Flemish language however is very important:
  • 1302: Schild and vriend "genocide"
  • Collaboration with Germans during WW I because of the Flemish language.
  • The Flemish movement that wanted the recognition and protection of the language of the Flemings (as opposed to the language of non-Flemings): Flemish
  • The historical language counts in every town to determine whether it was a Flemish town or a French speaking town.
  • Leuven Vlaams: the exclusion from French university and French speaking students (many from ethnic Flemish origin) to Wallonia. The reason behind this was that Flemings speak Flemish, and that French speakers (even when they are from Flemish origin) aren't Flemings.
  • The fact that French speaking people from ethnic Flemish origin in Brussel and Wallonia are never recognized as Flemings (not by the people, not by the media, not by institutions, etc.). While almost many (most) people in Brussels are from an ethnic Flemish origin, only the Flemish speakers are considered Flemings ("the Flemish minority" in Brussels): in culture, education, encyclopedia, parliament, government, etc.
  • The non-violent tensions in de Flemish "faciliteitengemeenten", between French speakers (many from not so distant ethnic Flemish origin) and Flemings. No one considers these francophones as Flemings.
  • The communitarian tensions (= the tensions between the communities of Belgium) are between Flemings and between French speakers (of whom many have Flemish origin again).

Your reasoning then is as follows: we better use numbers that we know are totally wrong than that we don't use numbers. That is clearly unacceptable. As I pointed out enough that the Flemish language is a necessary factor, we can however make some "max" estimates based on language as long as we don't find good references. There will be "less than 20 000" Flemings in the USA. Then we can add in a footnote that this is the number of Dutch speakers, not Flemings. That however is clearly more accurate than 1 million. 134.58.253.131 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Epf. It is up to a person how he sees himself and _not_ the majority decides if a person belongs to an ethnic group. For instance: if a person decides he wants to be a soccer fan of the team Anderlecht, then he is a fan of Anderlecht, even if the vast majority of the other Anderlecht fans says "no, you are not a part of being a fan of Anderlecht" It's the same with any ethnic group. If a person calls himself Flemish in America, he is Flemish, even if all the other Flemish people in Belgium call him non-Flemish. Janno 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's agreement here on a term like 'less than' 20,000. The number of Americans of Flemish decent seems to be unknown, and not all of them will consider themselves to be Flemish. By comparison, not all Italian-Americans are Italians, and not all Americans of Italian decent will consider themselves to be Italian. --Duncan (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Why don't we divide the table in two parts. First part includes the certain numbers of Flemings. The other part of the table refers to Flemish ancestry. 134.58.253.131 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Celts or Germanic ??

The article states that Flemings descend from, or are, a Germanic people. However, i think, certainly to judge on the language of my home province, West-Flanders, that we are of (at least partly) Celtic descend. For example, it is stated by many, that, as opposed to the 'other' dialects in flanders (limburgish, antwerpish and the brabanticized Eastern Flemish), West-Flemish is in origin a Celtic language. Of course it has been under the influence of Romance and Germanic languages, but it still retains some oddities that can not be explained when looking to the latter two, but to the -now extinct- celtic languages (not island celtic, the other one).

I am by no means an expert on this case, and it is only a thought. Lest not forget the Morini tribe... -- Horned God 2006-06-17 20:09 (UTC)

I was once off-handedly taught that the inhabitants of the narrow coastal stretch along the North Sea in Belgium and (at least part of) the Netherlands, genetically show a clearly stronger descendancy of ancient Celts – some even attribute an alledged tendency towards stubborness to this origin. Whether dialects in a large part of the former Countship of Flanders would have been more influenced by Brabantian dialects, I do not know. Surely Bruges is very near the sea and it has for many centuries been the major harbour and city for a vaste hinterland, thus the coast does not seem to have been isolated enough to explain differences in evolution of the speech. This might then have been caused by a larger number of people originally, and possibly for a longer period generally, speaking a completely different language. Would 'the other one' be 'that one' which is actually still spoken in (western) Brittany, France (now away from the shore which is taken over by French people and their speech) and in (northern) Wales, thus only extinct in Cornwall, England before its reanimation in the 20th century? Would then the coast line of this same strain of ancient Celts have run all the way along the Channel until the Normans arrived there? I'm just trying to poke anyone for stating some facts; a layman does not easily find reliable data from the determining period. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-17 22:56 (UTC)
I would also like to know what precisely may distinguish (some of ?) the West-Flemish dialects: are there grammatical differences, or is it just based on a few unique or possibly Celtic-related words for 'bread' or 'bucket'? -- SomeHuman 2006-06-18 01:08 (UTC)

I can say it in dutch itself: "Eiland-Keltisch": Irish & scottish gaelic, brittany, welsh, cornish & manx. I may not be using the correct therm, but isn't the other one called insular celtic "vasteland keltisch". That is now extinct, but echoes can be heard in West-Flemish. For example, whereas in all the other dialects "I become wet of the rain" is translated with "worden", "Ik word nat van de regen", West-Flemish uses "komen": "Ik KOM nat van de regen". Also, westflemish is the only one to actually conjugate "yes" and "no". If you ask any other one: "Did you feed the dog ?" (heb je de hond eten gegeven) he will respond just with "Ja" (yes). West-Flemish however, uses "yes" AND a personal proverb. So it would be like this: "Ej den on teetn heheevn?" Answer: "Joak". Roughly translated it would be "Yes I". (the other ones are "joah", "joaj", "joas", "joat", "joaw", "joah" and "joas".) Negative response, in "proper" dutch is: "Neen". West-Flemish answer is: "Nink", or translated: "No I" (the other ones are "njig", "ni'j" or "ninnie", "nins", "nint", "niw", "njig" and "nins"). Also, roughly translated the sentence "I did not do it" is in "proper" dutch "Ik heb dat niet gedaan" whereas in westflemish it is "Ke n'ei kik da nie hedoan", which literally means "I not have I that not done" or proper translated: "I have not I not did this". Of course, PURE literally, it is not to be translated.-- Horned God 2006-06-18 19:50

But does this show something specifically West-Flemish? In East-Flemish Ghent they don't say "nin'k" but "ninok" – don't ask me about any other forms. In historically Brabantian Mechelen, I say "'K em ek-ik da ni gedaan" thus "I have I I that not done" (indeed tripled) – about as close to your phrase than to standard Dutch (which would literally translate to "I have that not done".). You mentioned already "I beCOME wet of the rain", exactly as the West-Flemish phrase – would that make English "continental Celtic" or just "mainland Celtic" (both 'vasteland Keltisch')? By my own dialect, I know there are grammatical differences that might be further from standard Dutch than from German or even English; and your dialect is not very close to mine (though I like its machinegun speed and understand it pretty well since in early childhood a friend at the coast and I stayed at one another's place for nearly a month every year).
'Mainland' is not necessarily (in Dutch) 'vasteland' (usually translated as 'continent') but may be the largest of a group of islands (Mainland Shetland, Mainland Orkney), in this case the parts fixed to England and continental Brittany, as opposed to the islands Man, Ireland, the Hebrides with the Scottish Westcoast: I had assumed you meant this opposition of "Brythonic" and "Geodelic". These two separate strains of Celtic are recognized, both are indeed 'islandic or insular Celtic'. If I was mistaken, would your really extinct 'other one' or 'vasteland Celtic' then be another group? What besides remnants in your dialect had been part of it? (Ah, please sign your messages on talk pages, I just did it for you) -- SomeHuman 2006-06-18 21:20 (UTC)
I'm afraid the article's reference I recently added (also showing that one of the earliest writings in Dutch that we know, would come from current French Flanders, just West of West-Flanders), "Dutch/Flemish in the North of France", allows little room for a particular Celtic influence in West-Flemish – though I'm most interested to see proper references to prove such influence. I just found proof of 'continental Celtic or Gaulish' – (Thát rings a bell, a bit late for Goscinny but we might ask Uderzo.) – which died out in the 5th century and of which mainly some brief inscriptions are preserved: see Celtic Language (very short). Please dig further. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-19 00:10 (UTC)

The article is, i think, wrong in the fact that they state that both manx and cornish are extinct. Cornish is, indeed, or has been, extinct, but is now revived, based on 'old' texts. Also, manx has never been extinct, it is still spoken on Man. Back to West-Flemish then. Historically spoken, the 'Morini', a Celtic tribe, inhabited these lands. I for one do not start this "talk" for myself, since my great-grandmother is from Blois, in France, so I have some Celtic ancestors (i think), but that doesn't matter anyway. What i did find on the net once, in a certain forum, is this: "Aangezien ik toevallig in mijn studentenperiode , lang geleden , nog een thesis heb gemaakt over de oosprong van het Westvlaamse dialect moet ik je tegenspreken hoor. In oorsprong is het Westvlaams een Keltische taal. Met weliswaar later nogal wat Franse , Nederlandstalige en Duitstalige invloeden erop uitgewerkt , maar alle woordvervoegingen en heel wat oorspronkelijke woorden zijn ongetwijfeld Keltisch. Van oorsprong is de bevolking die in de streek van Westelijk Vlaanderen woont ook een Keltisch volk, dat daar terecht is gekomen tijdens de grote volksverhuizingen op het einde van de Romeinse tijd. Wat jij zegt klopt volkomen voor de provincies Antwerpen , Limburg en Brabant in Belgie, maar niet voor West en Oostvlaanderen. Die hebben qua oorsprong niks te maken de Germaanse oorsprong van de andere gebieden , ze hebben er enkel wel de invloed van ondervonden. "

"Given that I, by coincidence in my studyperiod, long ago, made a thesis on the origins of the westflemish dialect, i have to contradict you. In origin is Westflemish a celtic language. Of course with later some French, Dutch and German influences, but all conjugations and original words are no doubt Celtic. From origin is the population of that region also Celtic, that got there during the big "people movements (you know what i mean)" at the end of the Roman Era. What you say is truly right for Antwerp, Limburg and Brabant in Belgium, but not for East and Westflanders. They have nothing to do with the Germanic origin of the other regions, only having been influenced by it."

Of course, that is badly translated and literally copied from a site, but also in character, Westflemish people are other than the others of Belgium, since they say that the Belgians are Burgundian, but it has been said the Westflemish are tough and stubborn, a treat not to be found so much in other provinces. Also, the "beCOME" issue is this: Anyone "wordt" something (from the verb "worden"). A westfleming "komt" something (from "komen"). It has been stated that celtic languages also lack a verb which is similar to "worden" (Westflemish is the only dialect to lack that verb). Horned God 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The wrong article is the short one, I had already stated the revival of Cornish and a man I met in a wouldbe-Irish pub near my home city just last week told me he's from Man and it has (present tense) its own language, though I had overheard an English conversation with his brother – both men proved to be scolars and sober, I don't doubt the correct use of the present tense for the Manx subject; also its Wikipedia article states its revival.
The other article I mentioned, giving more reason to doubt a particular Celtic origin of West-Flemish, is linked from within the article 'Flemish people':
Dutch/Flemish in the North of France (Hugo Ryckeboer) University of Ghent, Department of Dutch Linguistics.
You did not translate the excerpt badly at all. The problem is that it's from some discussion forum: many (pseudonym) people on such site state something like "I once wrote a thesis on the subject of our discussion" though I generally doubt their true credentials, since often they disprove their pretended expertise elsewhere on the forum. I can't judge this from the excerpt you cited.
About worden and komen: each dialect has characteristic differences, my point was that Dutch 'zijn' is English 'to be' and Dutch 'worden' is English 'to become', that 'come' in English is pronounced exactly as the West-Flemish 'kom' with identical meaning: it can't be Celtic unless it's also of Celtic origin in English. I don't think one could pretend English to be basically a Celtic language though. I had already stated my awareness of the alledged stubborness of West-Flemings (and I'm willing to testify on that subject); such stereotype can hardly be seen as legitimate proof of a Celtic origin. I'm afraid I still need good and verifiable reference(s). Thanks for the effort you already made. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-19 14:30 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Morini (tribe) lived in west-flanders, a tribe which, unlike the nervii and the menapii, is said to be Celtic. It is hard to find proof that westflemish is a celtic language, but i do think it is in origin a celtic language, but very "germanicized". What's that about testify ? You had a run-in with one of our own? Horned God 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) ~ Also, let's also not forget, that, in "older" days (before belgium) there was no "east" or "west" flanders, there was just "flanders". It was a "graafschap", a county if you will. It consisted of roughly the territories of nowadays east, west, french flanders as well as part of the dutch province of Zeeland. It is a group which is separate from the rest (brabantic) of belgium. Horned God 15:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew parents breaking with one of their children for 4 decades, living in the same coastal village, even long after having been proven wrong about their initial fears about this child's future; I can't see it happen that way in Burgundian Brabant. Me having a run-in with one of (y)our own... sounds pretty Irish – it wouldn't last, you see, it takes two to tango. Precisely because I know French Flanders and West-Flanders to be one in origin and history till about 230 years ago, makes the article on French Flanders cast scepticism (I'm not saying disbelief, mind you) on a truly substancial Celtic background. I'll leave it at that unless I would stumble on some (for me) new facts. SomeHuman 2006-06-21 17:57 (UTC)

Morini/Flemings and England

The Morini tribe of Nord and Pas-du-Calais, France are considered the first inhabitants of that region before the Celts, Romans and Germans. Some of the Morini or later known as Flemings are said to crossed the English Channel in the 700s to 900s AD, thus it's possible these Flemings cofounded England (the area known as Kent County) with the Angles and Saxons. I'm exploring this possiblity and will return with essential resources, because my Dad who's from the area (St. Omer, France) told me the story and would like to find proof of the Moroni/ Fleming and England connection. + Mike D 26 04:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a follow up. I wasn't able to find a link to Flemings and the English, probably a local myth told by my Dad and Grandparents, whom live in the Saint Omer, France area. I happen to live in California, U.S. and been to his hometown twice in my life, so I'm familiar with the Fleming background of the Nord region (Pas-du-Calais). I wanted to add an edit on the continuous preservation of Flemish culture in Northernmost France. There are several towns or villages kept their original place names in Flemish, but had French titles in parenthesises. Watten, Bergues, Longuenesse, Vercingques and Dunkirk (also known as Dunkerque) are markers of the Flemings' presence throughout the region's history. Indeed, local Flemish culture, language and identity has made a slight comeback in Nord/Pas-Du-Calais, but the elders (the WWI generation) usually are the ones more familiar to preserve that culture than the younger ones. My Dad in a recent visit to his hometown (St. Omer) found a lot less Flemish speakers than when he grew up. + Mike D 26 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, the myth on Flemish tribal involvement in the settlement of southeast England and Great Britain as a whole, is still a myth until you convince me or proven your thesis. According to linguists, Frisians of the northern area of Friesland, the Netherlands have closer ethnotribal links to the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who set up a small kingdom in Kent County. Even the Danes who share a Germanic ancestral link with the Norse or Vikings had contributed to the legacy of Anglo-Saxon culture and English heritage appears more "North German" than "West Dutch". The English language has a higher Low German/some Scandinavian background than in Fleming speech, also a variation of Dutch don't seem to appear much in any dialect of the English language. I'm sure the possibility of any Fleming tribe like the Morini may visited England, because the distance between Dover, England with Calais, France or Oostende, Belgium is close by 20-60 kms. from each other, but the Morini require a stronger wood-build not grass-mat boat to get beyond the beaches or cross the stormy English Channel safe and able to return without being beaten by waves or winds. Truth and facts are one thing to put on Wikipedia, but myths or theories should be written as that: citations needed, or they remain a fairy tale (no offense), but I can imagine Flemings had connections to the isle of Britain. 63.3.14.1 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Flemish Lion

Is it intentional that there is no actual mention of the origins of the coat of arms and thereby the lion? That is to say Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders? At least that's whom I recall as the oldest documented use (certainly one of the d'Alsace). If needed I can dig out the necessary sources.--Caranorn 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Flemings a Germanic people

This article is included in the category Germanic peoples along with other modern national and ethnic groups (Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, English, Dutch), although no source is given for the claims. I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic". That claim is typically associated with neo-nazi groups, for the association of the term Germanic peoples with Nazism, see Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lebensraum, and for instance Hitler salute.

For the Swedes or Danes, the test is whether they describe themselves as a "Germanic people". In the case of Flanders, some people on the right certainly do, the issue is whether that is a fact for the rest of the population.Paul111 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you limit this discussion to one talkpage. See the entry at you deletion request: You already got proven wrong. Most wikipedians live closer to the scientific world than the neo-nazi world.Rex 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Flemish and Dutch peoples

User:Smith2006 stated:

The Flemish are considered an integral part of the Dutch people by most scientific authors

Which "scientific authors" do you refer to? This statement seems unfunded. LHOON 16:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

dominated by francophone or Walloon minority?

Hello,

this is (as usual) a quite sensitive issue but... is it correct to write things like "dominated by the Walloon minority". Here are some of my objections :

1. Not all francophones are Walloons. In fact, in Belgium you have three big groups : Flemings (who speak Dutch), Walloons (who speak French), and Frenchspeaking people in Brussels. 2. Whether or not we write "dominated by Walloons" or "dominated by the francophone minority", there is still an important subtlety here. Most of the oppression happened when Belgium was far from democratic. Most Flemings weren't allowed to vote, but neither were most of the Walloons! In fact, several members of parliament etc.. were (rich) Flemings themselves, but they happened to be francophile...

Don't get me wrong, I think the linguistic oppression is a major part of our "history"(!) and it should be included. Thank you,Evilbu 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be included, especially since the domination and linguistic oppression did not end as soon as one-man-one-vote became a reality. The distinction between Brussels and Wallonia (assuming you accidentally typed they speak Dutch there, it's French) is not relevant for the historical suppression: Brussels was not yet French-speaking but became such mainly as a result of the domination, by Walloons migrating to the capital; since universities were French-speaking, ambitious Flemish people had no choice but becoming French-speaking in particular on scolarly matters and thus in culturally and politically important circles, leaving Dutch / Flemish a mere paysants' speech. For many Walloons, and now also speakers of French in Brussels, that connotation may even today cause a certain depreciation, three decades ago it was still ostentatively obvious. — SomeHuman 19 Dec2006 20:24 (UTC)
Um, so in short what are your points of view? I don't really understand why you wrote "please no revisionist history of Belgium". What exactly was I "revising"? I keep asking : what does "dominated by Walloon minority" mean?(And yes, that was just a stupid mistake, I meant Walloons who speak French).Evilbu 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Flemish were oppressed, this is a fact. The term taalstrijd is a concept known to virtually every Dutch speaker, especially one living in Belgium.Rex 21:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Fleming, and I fully agree. (But I don't think Dutch speakers in the Netherlands are that familiar with issues like these). So how about my remarks?Evilbu 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested revisionism was: 1) Not Walloons but (mainly) the people in Brusssels were to blame; 2) the Flemish were responsible themselves by adopting French; 3) it was not a matter between languages but a matter between social classes; 4) it was due to a lack of democracy and not supported by ordinary people amongst the Walloons. Your questions still try to downplay the degree of domination; to put it clearly: Belgians had a colony in Africa, Walloons also had one in their own backyard. By the way, any idea which became the second language and lingua franca in Congo? — SomeHuman 20 Dec2006 04:57 (UTC)
I really suggest you do take a look at my userboxes... I wasn't suggesting revionism, I am just suggesting things worth discussion.
1. Well yes, Walloons living in Wallonia, with no right to vote, how could they be responsible?
2. No, I never suggested that! But as far as I know, there were some powerful wealthy Flemings (like members of parliament) who were outrageously francophile and couldn't care less about the "taalverdrukking" either.
3. No, didn't really suggest that.
4. Well again, I am suggesting the possibility that it was because of lack of democracy. And about "not supported by ordinary people amongst the Walloons"... well do we have a source? I'm just trying to make it more clear. "oppressed by the Walloon minority" is just so vague. It either needs different wording or some more explaining.
About Belgium being a colony, Walloons often claim that the flow of money is only a very recent thing and that the richer Wallonia gave Flanders money so that they could eventually become this prosperous. I am well aware of research that has proven otherwise (like Juul Hannes') but that doesn't mean they believe it as well. It's controversial.
Yes French became THE language in Congo, even though there were many Flemings there as well (who even gave kids classes...in French)Evilbu 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I still would like to know whether or not you have a source for the claim that Walloons in general supported the oppression of Flemings?Evilbu 14:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
There are ample sources for the oppression, I do not provide sources with the names of the responsible individuals: if you want to make a distinction between classes, it is you who need to find reliable sources for that. You also keep ignoring that one-man-one-vote is not at all a very recent thing in Belgium and that discriminations continued when according to your standards, all Walloons became responsible. Your idea of wealthy and politically important Flemish being co-responsible by being "outrageously francophile", is nonsense: the domination required one to be "outrageously francophile" to stand any chance at all to become notable. — SomeHuman 20 Feb2007 18:08 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

The accuracy of the article is disputed. There are similar problems at Dutch (ethnic group).

  • The term Flemings is currently mostly used to refer to the ethnic group native to Flanders - no source for claim they are ethnic group, this is a controversial and disputed issue.
  • ethnic Flemings of French Flanders - no source for existence of such a group, linguistic minority only
  • 847,000 ethnic Flemings living in France. Source is source is an evangelisation website, and not reliable.
  • Geopatronyme estimates 1,300,000 people in France with a Flemish surname. Is not evidence that thay are ethnic Flemish.
  • Joshua Project gives a number of 127,000 ethnic Flemings in the Netherlands. Project is an evangelisation website, and not reliable. No indication of how they compiled this, since no Dutch statistics list 'ethnic Flemings'.
  • Canadian Census: 129,780 reported Belgian ethnic origin. Does not mean that 80% of them are Flemings, or indeed that any are ethnic Flemings.
  • South Africa and Australia numbers of Flemish nationals. No such nationality exists (yet).
  • 92 000 ethnic Flemings in the Congo. Extremely unlikely, source is an evangelisation website, and not reliable
  • It is generally believed, based of historical linguistics, that the Flemings mainly descend from the invading Germanic tribes No source, this is a typical Vlaams Belang viewpoint.
  • Flemings appear more Anglo-Saxon again, preferring a down-to-earth, factual style. One might say the Flemings prefer a Cartesian discourse more than contemporary France. Trivia, no source.
  • it is increasingly likely that a Flemish Republic may one day emerge from the current Belgian state. May have some validity, but it is speculative.
  • The official flag of Flanders is not the flag of an ethnic group, although some people use it that way.
  • In the United States and Canada today, there are more than 1 million Americans who clearly have Flemish roots no source at this point.

List updated with new items.Paul111 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To note, the Joshua Project references definitelly have to go. They have no scientific value whatsoever. If the material they are supposed to document have any merit at all it shouldn't vbe too hard to find alternative sources.--Caranorn 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Paul111: Some of your remarks are to the point, some others however...
  • If Flemish should not be listed as a Germanic people, what would you suggest, Chinese? (Quote:) "It is generally believed, based of historical linguistics, that the Flemings mainly descend from the invading Germanic tribes No source, this is a typical Vlaams Belang viewpoint." (end quote) Woaw, that's the best conspiracy theory I've heard so far: the Vlaams Belang managed to infiltrate both the Guimardstraat and the Rijksonderwijs decades before even its predecessor Vlaams Blok was founded! Each primary school history program has been teaching for at least four decades that the inhabitants of present-day Flanders mainly descend from the invading Franks from whom the Dutch language became derived; so does the article on them. Populist extreme- (pardon, far-) right parties build on popular knowledge and themes, rarely invent such. In fact, the Franks might have mingled with Celts though then obviously from a most dominant position, as there are hardly any traces of Celtic language origin in Dutch; there may be some minor Celtic influences in West Flemish (and probably in French Flemish as well) which gave rise to a few theories, but clearly the Celts were mainly driven out westwardly. Let us handle your other concerns with more seriousness...
  • The problems with 'ethnicity' of the Flemish, and not surprisingly of the Dutch, might be language related: 'etnie' and 'etniciteit' in Dutch language, are suborders of race. Language and other cultural elements that may give people a feeling as 'a people' or even 'a nation', are thus entirely differenciated from ethnicity. Only on this English Wikipedia, I find those elements regarded as contributing to 'ethnicity' in a sense that I might in Dutch call Vlaamse eigenheid (what typifies Flemish, the Flemish deep character). Thus whereas the Belgian law explicitly forbids discrimination based on etniciteit, creating an article like 'Flemish ethnicity' feels to clearly push people towards self-identification on racial grounds, which is not quite appreciated especially after certain Flemish nationalist groups that had promoted identification along similar lines had found support by relevant viewpoints of the last foreign occupier of the area. Might this explain why there appears to be a difference between speakers of English and of Dutch in perception of the term or concept of 'ethnic'?
  • The real problem is actually a lot worse: the number of people with e.g. Flemish family names indicates a bloodline of 1 / 2n being still important (at least by male lineage). All this emphasis on such Blut und Boden-thinking, and the important male versus forgotten female, are not typically limited to Flemish but appear to be mainly an English-language Wikipedia characteristic, induced by articles having been named like 'Flemish (ethnical group)' — I assume the Flemish/Dutch awareness of the 'ethnical' concept to be more fundamental as well for speakers of English, than those pretend.
  • Any feeling of being 'Flemish' is purely based on the language, what else?(*) With few exceptions all West-European powers or peoples have invaded, possessed, occupied, or dominated present-day Flanders (just a few better-known simplified samples: Romans, (we skip the Franks, that's us Flemings), Vikings, Austrians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Germans, and some came several times), and/or had important trading connections. Such must have left traces... one cannot physically distinguish Flemish people from e.g. Walloons and both eat with a fork. (Okay, the Scots are avaricious, the Dutch economical, etc... but such cultural real or false pictures follow on being identified and depends on by whom, these are not causes of self-identification). Thus how could people in French Flanders who maintained their dialect despite centuries of trying to weed it out, not feel related to the Flemish in Belgium? Knowing that there also French-speakers have dominated the Flemish, can only strengthen feelings similar to kinship. The geographical connection of the Zeeuws-Flemish attached to Belgian Flemish areas with identical native dialect groups (there are two other such large groups of Belgian Flemish dialects elsewhere) while being separated by main rivers from the rest of the Netherlands, makes clear that some identification exists; this is to some extend even the case for all Flemish and Dutch people as having been one Lowlandic nation for a long time. In Zeeuws Flanders, the latter cannot be differentiated from dialectal-group identification: 'objective' measurement is impossible.
      (*) There is one important aspect other than the language that currently binds the present-day Flemish: their Belgian nationality. Only that (or perhaps mainly the consequent relatively recent history) makes them very different from Dutch nationals. Catholic versus Protestant differences, with a mere 5% church go-ers have become obsolete. Historically, only the Hollandic and northeastern Dutch had been seen to be rather different from the southern lowlandic areas now called Flanders. Thus it is highly an individual and possibly regional perception to fully or partially include the French-Flemish and Zeeuws-Flemish (both more closely related by dialect at least to the West Flemish, than most Dutch nationals); e.g. Belgian speakers of Brabantic or Limburgish dialects may find watching the TV programs from the Netherlands and reading books written by Dutch people, as more important than the old historical West Flemish - French Flemish relationship in days that Brabantians and Limburgers were not Flemish at all, and might often find West Flemish people harder to understand than most Hollandic Dutchmen. But Limburgers would not quickly think of supporting for the nearby Dutch PSV football team when it plays against the far West Flemish Club Brugge, nor for the nearby Walloon Rouches team when it plays against Bruges as they probably read or watched Maigret in Dutch translation. For present-day Flemish identity, nationality and/or mutual history, and language go hand in hand, while awareness of both the large language area of the historical Netherlands and the entirely different borders of the smaller historical Countship of Flanders, play a role.
  • Of course, Flemish-speakers in French Flanders may (willingly) (mainly) identify themselves as French (nationals). That is just as true for Flemish people towards Belgium. The precise strength of feelings of identification, are always mainly individual. And I couldn't even start to guess what percentages of identification the average inhabitant of present-day Flanders would give for 'My city/town/village', 'Flemish', 'Belgian', 'Dutch-speaking', 'EU-citizen', 'Western-European', 'European', 'World-inhabitant'. It is rather hard to obtain reliable figures for 'Christian', 'humanist', 'atheist'... while most people identify to only one of the latter kind. It is however very clear that with extremely few exceptions, each individual would give 'Flemish' not necessarily a major but certainly a significant weight. Thus the 'Flemish people' do exist as such. But Flemish ethnicity... pfff.
— SomeHuman 20 Feb2007 03:56-06:04 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flemish_people/Archive_1&oldid=1039847210"