Why should Belgium exist?

[DrGreenTom]

It's obvious that the Belgian state is nothing more than a Walloon/French dream.

Believe it, but shortly after 1815 many French immigrated to Belgium to seek their luck.

In 1930, belgium had the most liberal constitution in the world. The French coming to Belgium were political refugees.

They were also mostly responsible for the French speaking elite to remain in Belgium.

speaking French was a fashion thing. In sint-Petersburg, they were speaking french too

Most Flemish weren't even able to read and were easely manipulated

Most Wallonians couldn't read or write neither

Culturally we belong more to the Netherlands, believe me. Don't confuse the Netherlands with the two provinces of Holland. Northern Brabant, Zeeland and Limburg are very related to what we call Flanders today. Go to the Netherlands and be amazed.

i disagree, but soit.

btw : question : how many people from Wallonia do you actually know ? [/color]

Three, and they all differ from us.

Let's be serious : the dotation given to the monarchy is a ridiculous amount of he BNP. Besides : presidents cost money too : elections, salary, administration, economical loss due to political instability, ...

A president is elected, a monarch isn't. Big difference. I don't think French or Germans are jalous at our monarchy. Just be serious. It's nostalgy and even blind patriotism.

i did not defend the concept of monarchy.
All i said is that a president costs money too. And causes a more unstable politcal situation.

Maybe you should kick out Limburg too. A lot of our tax-money goes to those people too. And let's be serious : nobody considers Limburgers to be really Flemish.
To not mention the people from West-Vlaanderen : on TV they get subtitled so the rest of Flanders would understand what those people are actually saying as they could easily say "ni ni ni ni ni" instead of "how do you do" without anybody hears the difference

They have more in common with us than Walloons, with all my respect. On the other hand are Western Flemish related with people from Zeeland and Belgian Limburgers with Dutch Limburgers.

i was just taking it as an example to say that "people" is a very subjective thing. Language isn't a dominant factor in it.
(btw : i never studied german but can watch their Tv without having problems to understand. In West-Vlaanderen, i am lost ... Yet i don't suppose you'll say i'm a german ?)
I've spent a lot of time abroad and everywhere i lived i noticed that in my group of friends, not matter the country, there were lots of geo- & biologists and very few people with a degree in economics. I believe in personality, not nationality.
Yet nationalists are trying to say i have more in common with an econmist from Bruges than a geologist from Bratislava. I find this ridiculous ..

How many Dutch do take politics seriously? How many Dutch do know their history? Few do. When it comes to nationalism many ignorants are easily won as support. It's sad.

Personally i think it's hard to be left-wing and xenophobic in the same time. the fact the so-called democratic Nationalist see little problem win collaborating with the nazi Vlaams Belang worries me !

You don't understand it. You really don't. Nationalism isn't xenophobia.

i disagree. nationalism always is based on the feeling of "our group" against the rest of the world ...

You believe Belgium should remain. That's nationalism. Nationalism has nothing to do with left or right since it's apart from patriotism. Nationalism is the ideology that makes us believe a nation should be that nation. It's geopolitical.

i don't believe Belgium should remain. I couldn't care less.
I was just replying to your feeling Flanders should be attached to holland. An idea i find very ridiculous.

[Dakkus]

So it doesn't matter you at all if Russia could have been won Finland and we could have been parts of Russia for last 60 years...

I'm really glad that there have been border between Russia and Finland and not between Russia and Sweden...

Everyone in Finland should feel somekind of nationalism, that's how we respect what our grandfathers did in the world war 2.

Maybe times will change and borders will disappear in future, today world isn't ready for that yet eventhough dakkus would be :)

I'm extremely happy for not having been born in the USSR. This doesn't mean I'm proud to be a Finn. I'm just happy for not having to live myself through the problems Russia has had. We can think about for example DDR and understand why being part of USSR would've been bad for us, too. But still, I would be as happy also in Sweden, Germany, Turku, France, Ireland or Norway.

I don't see the point of being specially proud of what area of this planet you've been born on or what language you speak or how do you look like.
I'm proud to be a human. That's all.

Let's think about the following theoretical thing:
Let's assume you would've been born in Moscow and your parents were otherwise as exactly as possible the same as they are now. You would've lived in USSR until 1991, after which you'd become Russian. As you would've had the same genes and you would've grown in a similar way you've done in the real life, you'd now be saying you're proud to be Russian. I believe not being part of Russia has made my life easier. However, I feel no reason to be proud of a thing other people have done. Yes, they've made it possible for us to be in the EU insted of Russia. All thanks to them for that. However, it was them who did it, not me. I don't feel like being proud of myself because of people living on the same area of this planet have done something good in the past.

I find this a bit odd. How is it possible, that if we take a copy of a person and place his birthplace in some other country, the person will find himself emotionally attached to the borders, flag and customs of that specific area, thinking of other areas as something worse?

Think about a person living in Tornio and another one living in Haaparanta. They live only one kilometer away from each other and have been friends for damn long.
Why should one think of himself as Swedish and the other one as Finnish? What's the reason here? Why should I feel more attached to Kouvola than Tallinn? Just because I was born inside one of the same 330 000 square kilometers Kouvola lies in?

I feel attached to humanity, not to land. I'm equally happy talking with Meindert from the Netherlands, Joe from Finland and David from Sweden in a party.
I'm no better than them even though I was born in Finland. I feel no way proud for being a Finn instead of a Dutchman.

I'm happy as a human, no matter what country it is my feet touch.

[Djeeuw2]

They were also mostly responsible for the French speaking elite to remain in Belgium.

speaking French was a fashion thing. In sint-Petersburg, they were speaking french too

That's true. French had the position English has today. Even though was Flanders supposed to be part of Belgium only for our thriving economy. I believe Flanders needed to remain Dutch. The history behind it is quite complicated and to be interpreted in many different ways that I fear no one can solve the discussion about it.

Most Wallonians couldn't read or write neither

But most catholic Flemish who could read only wanted to separate from the Netherlands because they found their Dutch to be a danger for the Roman Catholicism with it's calvinistic influence. For the rest is it to me obvious Flanders was perfect able to bind to the Netherlands (despite the cultural isolation of two centuries back then).
Nowadays is the cultural isolation one of four centuries. I fear Flanders is best to remain independed at first and after that it has to reattach.

btw : question : how many people from Wallonia do you actually know ? [/color]

Three, and they all differ from us.

I said and meant, those three all differ from us. But also when I do visit Walloon forums I often notice that people generally don't have problems using flamingant and nazi as synonyms, pretty unfortunate.

A president is elected, a monarch isn't. Big difference. I don't think French or Germans are jalous at our monarchy. Just be serious. It's nostalgy and even blind patriotism.

i did not defend the concept of monarchy.
All i said is that a president costs money too. And causes a more unstable politcal situation.

Okay, I agree. The Belgian monarchy is indeed one chosen in the traditional European way back then. Too bad that our crown prince isn't doing his best maintaining peace between Flanders and Wallonia. I don't agree that he isn't suppose to have an opinion, but he really isn't doing the Belgian balance any good.

Maybe you should kick out Limburg too. A lot of our tax-money goes to those people too. And let's be serious : nobody considers Limburgers to be really Flemish.
To not mention the people from West-Vlaanderen : on TV they get subtitled so the rest of Flanders would understand what those people are actually saying as they could easily say "ni ni ni ni ni" instead of "how do you do" without anybody hears the difference

It's true, the Limburg dialect is closer to German than it is to Dutch (as well as the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands are). Language is a complicated subject. The continental Germanic languages are all very related to each other. If things turned out differently Limburg with be considered a Low German dialect since it's understandable in Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle.

The general language is actually a constrictive language invented to make communication between groups possible. Western-Flemish and Limburgish people don't mind having Dutch as their official language. From French though we do differ linguistically too much to maintain the ties between the groups there (in Flemish Brabant Flemish even tend to be anti-Walloon because many Walloons who live there for twenty years still order their bread in the French language while Dutch isn't too hard to learn, except for the pronunciation)

They have more in common with us than Walloons, with all my respect. On the other hand are Western Flemish related with people from Zeeland and Belgian Limburgers with Dutch Limburgers.
i was just taking it as an example to say that "people" is a very subjective thing. Language isn't a dominant factor in it.
(btw : i never studied german but can watch their Tv without having problems to understand. In West-Vlaanderen, i am lost ... Yet i don't suppose you'll say i'm a german ?)

It's though a fact that Walloons are more left-winged while Flemish are clearly right-winged. Politically we do differ too much and left people still have the upperhand here (PS) while right has more votes. With all my respect for left voters, I fear for you that Vlaams Belang will grow even more and that Groen! and Sp.a will lose next elections. Nonetheless am I against - and do I remain against - the compulsory voting in Belgium.

I've spent a lot of time abroad and everywhere i lived i noticed that in my group of friends, not matter the country, there were lots of geo- & biologists and very few people with a degree in economics. I believe in personality, not nationality.
Yet nationalists are trying to say i have more in common with an econmist from Bruges than a geologist from Bratislava. I find this ridiculous ..

Not always, nationalists believe a nation should be a nation. You're talking about patriots. It's though a fact that every patriot is a nationalist, but not every nationalist is a patriot. You should read the opinions of Pelgrim of politics.be. He's left and nationalist. He believes in a pluralist Flanders.

Economically it's a fact that the Walloons don't show respect for our political opinions while we pay for them. We are only the economical insurance for Wallonia.
For the rest are we obligated to believe in the Belgian state. As if Flanders wouldn't work as a part of the Netherlands. As if the Belgian state is something we asked for in the history of Flanders.

How many Dutch do take politics seriously? How many Dutch do know their history? Few do. When it comes to nationalism many ignorants are easily won as support. It's sad.

It's true though. Take the Belgian Revolution for an example. Most French speaking protesters (at least those who started it) were rich people (proof: they were watching opera =>"La Muette de Portici" and started a riot during the movement with "Amour sacré de la Patrie" in). Most Flemish though, were poor people who were stirred up because the starvation, terrible winter, economical crisis, the fact Willem wasn't really a good leader (he neither wasn't for the Dutch at the North) and of course it's no news that uneducated people are easy to convert.

You believe Belgium should remain. That's nationalism. Nationalism has nothing to do with left or right since it's apart from patriotism. Nationalism is the ideology that makes us believe a nation should be that nation. It's geopolitical.

i don't believe Belgium should remain. I couldn't care less.
I was just replying to your feeling Flanders should be attached to holland. An idea i find very ridiculous.

Your opinion is your right.


Greetings and regards,
Djeeuw2

[Olivier]

Let's be serious : the dotation given to the monarchy is a ridiculous amount of he BNP. Besides : presidents cost money too : elections, salary, administration, economical loss due to political instability, ...

A president is elected, a monarch isn't. Big difference. I don't think French or Germans are jalous at our monarchy. Just be serious. It's nostalgy and even blind patriotism.

When joking, the french used th call Mitterrand "God"...
If you were to become dutch, you would swith from King Albert to Queen Beatrix? Where would be the difference?

I find this debate totally weird. Aren't we all Europeans, free to move whereever in Europe, meeting people everywhere... ?

I know it's a question of identity. We have the same debate here with Quebec and Canada.

[Olivier]

For more then 500 years people have been fighting for this part of earth and I'm proud of it. That's why the increasing pressure of Europe is extremely irritating me. Of course it will be better for the economy, but I don't need French, German of British people telling me what to do in my country.

It's not a question of who tells who to do what... but facing problem together whre our countries are not strong enough.
I find weird that people keep on thinking on a national way for question of environment, economy... despite the mondialisation.

Polluted air, financial crisis, global emigration don't bother national borders.

Besides, the Europeans have totally forgotten what is a real border! It is natural to go to Spain or Italy without any control. Remember the times we needed a visa (as I do to go to the USA!)...

Europe has given us peace. We are the first generation who has not lived a war. Europe is not only a bad thing!

[Van Geel]

I agree with Djeeuw2.

[DrGreenTom]

They were also mostly responsible for the French speaking elite to remain in Belgium.

speaking French was a fashion thing. In sint-Petersburg, they were speaking french too

That's true. French had the position English has today.

Hmm, not exactly. The social context is different : unlike English nowadays, speaking French was a way of clearly distinguishing yourself and proving yourself to be from a higher social class than the peasant who had no chance of learning that language.

Even though was Flanders supposed to be part of Belgium only for our thriving economy. I believe Flanders needed to remain Dutch. The history behind it is quite complicated and to be interpreted in many different ways that I fear no one can solve the discussion about it.

in 1830, Flanders was a really poor peasant area. So : which thriving economy ??? At the moment of independence, Belgium had to choose between annexing the nowadays Dutch Limburg part, or the nowadays Belgian Luxemburg part. Belgium choose for the foretasted and richer Luxemburg, even though later on that of coursed turned out to be the wrong choice. But that’s life. Russia probably still regrets selling poor good-for-nothing Alaska to the US too. C’est la vie

Most Wallonians couldn't read or write neither

But most catholic Flemish who could read only wanted to separate from the Netherlands because they found their Dutch to be a danger for the Roman Catholicism with it's calvinistic influence.

Well, you say it yourself : the idea behind the independence came not just from Wallonia…

For the rest is it to me obvious Flanders was perfect able to bind to the Netherlands (despite the cultural isolation of two centuries back then).
Nowadays is the cultural isolation one of four centuries. I fear Flanders is best to remain independed at first and after that it has to reattach.

you already know my opnion about that.

btw : question : how many people from Wallonia do you actually know ? [/color]

Three, and they all differ from us.

I said and meant, those three all differ from us. But also when I do visit Walloon forums I often notice that people generally don't have problems using flamingant and nazi as synonyms, pretty unfortunate.

I agree nationalism isn’t necessarily a synonym for Nazism. But the least you can say is that Vlaams Belang does little efforts to prove this idea to be wrong For not saying that they actually are just a bunch of nazi’s. (let’s face it …) So I do understand why Wallonia feels this way about Flemish nationalism… Flemish voters have the choice between democratic and nazi-nationalism, and they choose the latter, so they don’t have to complain.

A president is elected, a monarch isn't. Big difference. I don't think French or Germans are jalous at our monarchy. Just be serious. It's nostalgy and even blind patriotism.

i did not defend the concept of monarchy.
All i said is that a president costs money too. And causes a more unstable politcal situation.

Okay, I agree. The Belgian monarchy is indeed one chosen in the traditional European way back then. Too bad that our crown prince isn't doing his best maintaining peace between Flanders and Wallonia. I don't agree that he isn't suppose to have an opinion, but he really isn't doing the Belgian balance any good.

I fully agree that the monarchy has to be just ceremonial. Tais-toi & sois beau is the only option for him. So what our crown prince said is simply unacceptable !

Maybe you should kick out Limburg too. A lot of our tax-money goes to those people too. And let's be serious : nobody considers Limburgers to be really Flemish.
To not mention the people from West-Vlaanderen : on TV they get subtitled so the rest of Flanders would understand what those people are actually saying as they could easily say "ni ni ni ni ni" instead of "how do you do" without anybody hears the difference

It's true, the Limburg dialect is closer to German than it is to Dutch (as well as the Low Saxon dialects in the Netherlands are). Language is a complicated subject. The continental Germanic languages are all very related to each other. If things turned out differently Limburg with be considered a Low German dialect since it's understandable in Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle.

So if things turned out just a little different, Limburgers should be nationalist in a different way. Basically, you just proved yourself nationalism is based on nothing !

The general language is actually a constrictive language invented to make communication between groups possible. Western-Flemish and Limburgish people don't mind having Dutch as their official language. From French though we do differ linguistically too much to maintain the ties between the groups there

There’s hardly a European country that’s monolingual. Yet it hardly seems to be a problem in those countries. What’s so different in those countries ? More good will ?

(in Flemish Brabant Flemish even tend to be anti-Walloon because many Walloons who live there for twenty years still order their bread in the French language while Dutch isn't too hard to learn, except for the pronunciation)

The moment there’s a group of people that’s big enough to continue speaking in their own language, this automatically will happen. Nothing you can do to stop that, except putting a gun to people’s heads. I just was in SW-USA : everything is bilingual Spanish-English already. Like it or not, USA will become completely bilingual. I’d say : learn to live with reality …

They have more in common with us than Walloons, with all my respect. On the other hand are Western Flemish related with people from Zeeland and Belgian Limburgers with Dutch Limburgers.
i was just taking it as an example to say that "people" is a very subjective thing. Language isn't a dominant factor in it.
(btw : i never studied german but can watch their Tv without having problems to understand. In West-Vlaanderen, i am lost ... Yet i don't suppose you'll say i'm a german ?)

It's though a fact that Walloons are more left-winged while Flemish are clearly right-winged. Politically we do differ too much and left people still have the upperhand here (PS) while right has more votes.

. Unlike some countries, all our elections are held on the same date. Yet the differences between regions are pretty high, even amongst the provinces in Flanders. I do admit there’s a problem in Wallonia, because it’s (almost) a one party area. No matter which party, that’s never a good situation.

With all my respect for left voters, I fear for you that Vlaams Belang will grow even more and that Groen! and Sp.a will lose next elections. Nonetheless am I against - and do I remain against - the compulsory voting in Belgium.

Time will tell… But yes I’m afraid that VB will continue becoming stronger, even though they’re convicted for racism. Every election I become more and more embarrassed.

I've spent a lot of time abroad and everywhere i lived i noticed that in my group of friends, not matter the country, there were lots of geo- & biologists and very few people with a degree in economics. I believe in personality, not nationality.
Yet nationalists are trying to say i have more in common with an econmist from Bruges than a geologist from Bratislava. I find this ridiculous ..

Not always, nationalists believe a nation should be a nation. You're talking about patriots. It's though a fact that every patriot is a nationalist, but not every nationalist is a patriot.

it’s true there’s a subtle difference, but still I think I have more in common with a geologist from Bratislava than an economist from Bruges…

You should read the opinions of Pelgrim of politics.be. He's left and nationalist. He believes in a pluralist Flanders.

I always presumed he was a liberal ??? (maybe I’m wrong)

Economically it's a fact that the Walloons don't show respect for our political opinions while we pay for them.

it's hard to respect nazism

We are only the economical insurance for Wallonia.

i have no idea how big the transfers are. To calculate them correctly, you should also include the money Flanders would loose from independence though.

For the rest are we obligated to believe in the Belgian state. As if Flanders wouldn't work as a part of the Netherlands. As if the Belgian state is something we asked for in the history of Flanders.

As if actually there exists something as a Flemish history :-s Face it, we’ve been Roman, German, French, Dutch, English, Spanish, Austrian and part of Burgundy (and Limburg –yes them again- part of Liege), never ever there was Flanders.

How many Dutch do take politics seriously? How many Dutch do know their history? Few do. When it comes to nationalism many ignorants are easily won as support. It's sad.

It's true though. Take the Belgian Revolution for an example. Most French speaking protesters (at least those who started it) were rich people (proof: they were watching opera =>"La Muette de Portici" and started a riot during the movement with "Amour sacré de la Patrie" in). Most Flemish though, were poor people who were stirred up because the starvation, terrible winter, economical crisis, the fact Willem wasn't really a good leader (he neither wasn't for the Dutch at the North) and of course it's no news that uneducated people are easy to convert.

The uneducated and poor had nothing to say, that’s true (and that’s actually why I defend compulsory voting!), but this was he case in both Flanders and Wallonia…

You believe Belgium should remain. That's nationalism. Nationalism has nothing to do with left or right since it's apart from patriotism. Nationalism is the ideology that makes us believe a nation should be that nation. It's geopolitical.

i don't believe Belgium should remain. I couldn't care less.
I was just replying to your feeling Flanders should be attached to holland. An idea i find very ridiculous.

Your opinion is your right.

amen


Greetings and regards,
Djeeuw2[/quote]

[John S]

As a part of the Netherlands we would be (culturally) stronger. If Flanders would become independed it should remain like that for a period of 20 years and then it will be ready for an annexation to the Netherlands. If you want to know more about our ideology I'd refer you to

You people seem to be missing a very important point. None of the countries that are now part of the EU will remain or exist in 20 years. As the EU becomes a nation in its own right, the nation-states will be dissolved. In their place the EU will be divided into euro-regions. At this point in time they are being set up and are meant to replace the former nations.

The EU can never be a unified entity if the present states are allowed to exist. There will always be this anamosity or petty jealousies. To end it, the nation states themselves have to go. Some may not like it, but that is just too bad. People will most likely be encouraged to mix more by moving to different regions, and a national language will be decided. Whether it be English or some other such as Esperanto it will have to happen to create unity.

Europe is evolving and that evolution includes massive changes that the EU of the future would not be recognised by someone from the past.

[Dakkus]

As a part of the Netherlands we would be (culturally) stronger. If Flanders would become independed it should remain like that for a period of 20 years and then it will be ready for an annexation to the Netherlands. If you want to know more about our ideology I'd refer you to

You people seem to be missing a very important point. None of the countries that are now part of the EU will remain or exist in 20 years. As the EU becomes a nation in its own right, the nation-states will be dissolved. In their place the EU will be divided into euro-regions. At this point in time they are being set up and are meant to replace the former nations.

The EU can never be a unified entity if the present states are allowed to exist. There will always be this anamosity or petty jealousies. To end it, the nation states themselves have to go. Some may not like it, but that is just too bad. People will most likely be encouraged to mix more by moving to different regions, and a national language will be decided. Whether it be English or some other such as Esperanto it will have to happen to create unity.

Europe is evolving and that evolution includes massive changes that the EU of the future would not be recognised by someone from the past.

I understand this will probably happen. I don't think it'll be possible in the timescale you mentioned, but eventually it's gonna happen unless something very dramatic happens.
However, I don't think this is the best possible thing to happen, because unless done very well it might end up removing cultures. And removing cultures is bad for about the same reasons as removing animal species is.

Anyway, I don't believe there will be any one nationwide mother tongue at least for the next 150 years. Some language should and quite possibly will take its place as a governing language..

Arf. Gotta go, the text will possibly be written later :D

[John S]

I understand this will probably happen. I don't think it'll be possible in the timescale you mentioned, but eventually it's gonna happen unless something very dramatic happens.
However, I don't think this is the best possible thing to happen, because unless done very well it might end up removing cultures. And removing cultures is bad for about the same reasons as removing animal species is.

Anyway, I don't believe there will be any one nationwide mother tongue at least for the next 150 years. Some language should and quite possibly will take its place as a governing language..

Arf. Gotta go, the text will possibly be written later

No culture is stagnant. Cultures evolve. Loss of old culture is just a scare tactic used to try to stop progress by luddites.

I'm just curious to know how much culture has changed just in the last 100 years with the migrations of people and the absorbtion of concepts and methods from other cultures that was made easy by advancements in communications. And yet most people don't realise that the old cultures are gone and nobody in their right mind would want to change back to the ways things were done in the past.

You may not think so, but your culture already is way different then your ancestors. You already have many similarities to other countries then differences brought about by the universal usage of English and the Americanisation of almost everything people do today.

By the very fact that you speak English well means you have become culturally diversified then you may wish to acknowledge. And that will continue into the future.

The loss of national languages will happen in maybe one to two generatiions as the people born now will prefer to use English then the national languages and the national languages will fade away fast. Change is much quicker now then in previous generations.

[groentje]

In the US it's Spanish that's becoming very important, nowadays. There is a very important difference to the US. The US was one culture, and one culture who was on the top shelf: the Anglo-Saxon. Everyone who came there, was forced to learn English. And moreover, they didn't care, because they would become a member of a new nation.
Europe is not (yet?) a nation. It's a union of nations, who co-operate. And where it were individuals, who came to the US, in the EU, the countries itself are the ones who decide to work together. People stil live in their hometowns, they haven't moved. The best you can see this, in regions, where there was a dominant language, like in Belgium, Spain or Italy, and where the minor languages became more popular again. Belgium has nowadays three languages, which each have equal rights (German a little bit less, but there are only 71 000 who live in that area, with 10 000 000 inhabitants in Belgium), in Spain, not only Castilian=Spanish, but in the regions also Catalan or Basque.
If there will be one language for the EU, it will only be on the level of European politics. And even then, many countries (and their inhabitants) oppose another language being forced upon them. E.g. I do not mind talking in English to you, or in the US, but I would simply refuse to do the same at the local post office, or the counter at town hall or the Belgian Parliament. And for me personally, you can say the same for the European Parliament. Languages are one of the wealthnesses of Europe, and all over the world, languages are becoming more and more protected. How many countries in e.g. Latin America are letting native languages be used in court, town council, or even (local) parliaments? If you only go back a decade or two, you can clearly see the movement to more linguistic rights.

[Dakkus]

No culture is stagnant. Cultures evolve. Loss of old culture is just a scare tactic used to try to stop progress by luddites.

I'm just curious to know how much culture has changed just in the last 100 years with the migrations of people and the absorbtion of concepts and methods from other cultures that was made easy by advancements in communications. And yet most people don't realise that the old cultures are gone and nobody in their right mind would want to change back to the ways things were done in the past.

You may not think so, but your culture already is way different then your ancestors. You already have many similarities to other countries then differences brought about by the universal usage of English and the Americanisation of almost everything people do today.

By the very fact that you speak English well means you have become culturally diversified then you may wish to acknowledge. And that will continue into the future.

The loss of national languages will happen in maybe one to two generatiions as the people born now will prefer to use English then the national languages and the national languages will fade away fast. Change is much quicker now then in previous generations.

Cultures change, yes.
They've always done and they always will. That's the way cultures evolve to something better.
Cultural evolution works the way you just said it does: by taking influence from other cultures around it.
Now what happens if the number of cultures gets drastically lower? The cultural evolution will slow down. The amout of innovations will be smaller. And: the people will be less tolerant when they don't get too see different cultures so often. When people get less tolerant, they also start fighting with each others a bit easier.
We don't want that to happen. That's why we want to keep the different cultures existing. They are needed for the mental health of this planet.

Eventually the European cultures will melt in one big lump. That's however a thing no one should hope to happen. In short run it might look like a good idea because it creates more integrity. But in the long term it'll do only bad.
Luckily the USA is a "living" proof for the ability of cultures getting their health back when they get to stay long enough.
So, no hope is lost.

And besides..
Yes, I use English quite a lot. Actually I even end up thinking in English every now and then because there are times when I use English far more than Finnish.
Still, that doesn't stop me from eating Mämmi in easter. Nor does it stop me from thinking people should care of each other. Cultures can, will and should coexist. That's the way life works.

[Max]

I hate Belgium as a nation and I believe we should belong to the Netherlands.

edit -- moved to a more appropriate forum / avij

nnooo ... you don't mean this

[Skylimit]

as i'm sure some mod can cut this partial discussion out of the original thread and move it to the right subforum, i'll give some short answers.

hilarious comments, Jules !

[Skylimit]

If you were to become dutch, you would swith from King Albert to Queen Beatrix? Where would be the difference?