Talk:Flanders/Archive 2

message: Is this what they mean when they say Flanders is the Quebec of Europe? --Wetman 01:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flanders the Quebec of Europe?

message: I may hope my edits "broke open" the article to allow better -and less vague- edits in the future. Phlebas 00:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted cleanup

message: I deleted this :
:But even in these circumstances Flanders continued to flourish. The only danger to its position as one of the wealthiest regions in the world came after Belgium became independent in 1830,  with the 1845 famine in West Flanders as a sad example.
because it is not clear (cite your source please) that Flanders still flourished after the second half of the 17th century.  It seems to me (from looking at the history of the Southern Netherlands) that, afterwards, the Southern Netherlands were more the theater of military operations (War of Devolution, Franco-Dutch War, War of the Reunions, Nine Years War, War of the Spanish Succession) than a flourishing region.  Moreover the Barrier Treaty excluded the Flemings to use the Scheldt. If you count the Brabant revolution of 1789, the French invasion of 1794 and the Napoleonic wars, it appears that the 18th century was not that peacefull and wealthy in Flanders.  The United Kingdom of the Netherlands does not seem very positive either for its southern provinces since, from the article on the Belgian Revolution, the Dutch didn't take much the economic interests of the Flemings into account.  From this historical point of view and taking into account that the Belgian politics did not do anything for its poor provinces of Flanders (I mean the Eastern and Western ones), the famine of 1845 is not that surprizing but more a logical consequence of two centuries of continued poverty.  As proofs of this, I would like to point out the abandon of Bruges (which was build up again by the Britons in the 19th century) and the massive exile from the southern to the northern Netherlands during that period.  
I think the hole section on the history of Flanders is not NPOV because it is not telling a word about many centuries of Flanders.  I think because those centuries are not very positive and not very encouraging the building of a Flemish nation.  This is not very particular to Flanders but to any nation in the process of building (like the history of Belgium established by Henri Pirenne and others in order to reinforce the building of the Belgian nation).
The info about the famine of 1845 is important but should be put somewhere else.
--131.220.68.177 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted some NPOV material 

message: In the main article on Flanders, under the sub-heading, "Political Flanders," it says this:
"Political Flanders (in Belgium)
"Main article: Politics of Flanders
"Many new political parties during the last half century were founded in Flanders and most often in Antwerp: Daensism, progressive Christian-Democrats; Frontpartij & Volksunie, moderate nationalism; Green!, alternative/Green; Vlaams Belang: far-right nationalism; and ROSSEM, a short-lived anarchistic spark)."
I question the characterization of the Vlaams Belang as "far-right."  "Nationalist," yes -- referring to it as "nationalist" is fair, of course.  But "far-right" can't be justified.  The Vlaams Belang is a middle-of-the-road nationalist party.  It is neither "far-right," nor "far-left," nor "far-anything."  The Tranzi government in Brussels may try to paint the Belang as "far-right" but that government isn't exactly a disinterested participant in Belgian politics:  it has its own axe to grind vis-à-vis what the Belang stands for.  Is Pim's List "far-right"?  Of course not.  Neither is the Vlaams Belang.
-- Fred Scrooby, Vermont
If the VB is not far right, nobody is.  --Melodius 09:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vlaams Belang is not "far right"