In she introduced herself in the Arts Presenters 46th annual member conference in New York and in she did a six months season in the most prestigious tablao of Tokio, El Flamenco. In she participated as a guest artist in the show Bailaor by Antonio Canales in Palma de Mallorca and presented it in the most important tablaos of Madrid. In she appeared with the dancer Juan de Juan as a guest artist with Ana Salazar in the show Frente a frente and toured more than 30 Spanish cities like: Madrid, Barcelona, Sevilla and Granada.
The few that survived were persecuted during postwar brutal repression as collaborators with the enemy without any help whatsoever from that church which - at this same time - was actively helping through Bavarian and Tyrolean convents in the escape of former SS Odessa to Genua and hence to S-America. Might this have been part of the deal between the nazis and the Vatican : silence over elimination of Jews against reintroduction of the church in Russia???
Interesting questions. Sorry for the length. Complicated stories require some explanation. I was also entirely unsurprised to find so many deeply entrenched positions and misconceptions, wilful or otherwise.
The Songlines guide to Flamenco
The comments to this follow-up yet again highlight this. Having studied the language question in Belgian history for a fair few years and being Belgian myself , I think a number of issues lie at the root of many of themse misunderstandings. But the one thing which has done more to confuse matters than anything else is the different legal conception of language and its speakers.
In the dutch-speaking Belgian discourse, language is most frequently conceived of in terms of ius soli, or law of the land, which defines the language that should be spoken by an individual according to where they are Dutch on Flemish territory, French on Wallonian territory, either in Brussels and the nineteen communities. In the francophone Belgian discourse, people often also use the concept of ius personae, in which the individual determines which language they speak regardless of where they are.
This has historical reasons: before , Flanders was officially bilingual French and Dutch , whereas Wallonia has always been monolingual French only. This explains, for instance, why some francophone negotiators demand that any concession on the split of the electoral district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde should be followed by an extension of Brussels, and hence a shift of the language border which was established in ius personae here overrides the ius soli. It also explains why this idea is so unacceptable to Flemish negotiators, to whom the notion of ius soli — whether consciously or not — is the only point of reference.
Most telling of all is the fact that neither side of the debate seems to be able to understand how utterly unacceptable these demands appear to the others, since they do not speak the same language in more ways than one. And as the previous poster points out, the separation of Leuven can be seen in very similar terms. Comment 15 says: "Spain ruled Flanders for many years". That is not true. The King of Flanders happened to be King of Castille as well but no kingdom was ruled by the other.
Simply, Charles ruled both and used their resources jointly. Flanders was never part of Spain but a kindomg ruled by the same king that ruled Spain. This comes from dynastic rights, not from conquest.
FILM: SAURA'S FLAMENCO 'CARMEN' - The New York Times
The presence of Spanish soldiers in Flanders was due to the necessities of Charles to deploy troops to confront the rebellion that took place. They could have equally come from Germany or Italy as they did in great numbers later on. Comment 17 says: "[ The finance came from traders and bankers from Genoa and Germany. Castile never had the resources for such an enterprise so Charles took the money from where he could find it. I wonder French Flanders only passed to France in the 17th century, I believe Flanders was a feudal fief of the self-styled Grand Dukes of the West, aka the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century, but Flanders was never part of Burgundy.
That is like saying that Normandy was once 'part of England' because it happened to be ruled by the same man for some time after ; it simply isn't accurate. I had to go to France to find out about it Comment 19, I think that the truth is somewhere in between. Genoa and Germany were the source and the ultimate destiny of a big part of the profits i. So who was the boss is a matter of choice. Probably neither of them. For instance, oftentimes Spain 's hands were tied by the lack of money, but at the same time whenever it filed for bankrupcy something that happened at least three times , bankers had to swallow the pill.
Anyway, it is interesting to note how whenever there is a conflict in europe, half-forgotten issues from the past suddenly become important and are used as arguments to justify the modern conflict. Or is it really a matter of a couple of centuries old unfinished feuds? We have heard in this debate from Felmings in Flanders and Wallonians in Wallonia and vice versa, and also from Flemings and Wallonians in Brussels, and abroad. It would be interesting to hear from some germanophone Belgians from the Eupen area.
If Belgium were to become an ex-country, would Eupen also want full independance, or to be part of Wallonia, or to be part of Flanders there are other isolated Fleming areas along the Wallonia-German border , or to re-join Germany perhaps to create the Bundesland "Nordrhein-Westphalen-Eupen"?
- The Rough Guide To Flamenco Nuevo (CD, Compilation) | Discogs!
- Ian Hamilton Collected Poems!
And certainly he considered his domains as belongings of his family. If he felt a sense of duty, it was towards Christendom as a whole and to his family traditions. Anyway, there is a fascinating story in a man like him, born in rich, green Flanders and raised in the brilliant Burgundian court, choosing to retire and die in a monastery sited in the center of dry, barren Spanish Extremadura. Regarding the discovery of America, Kamen's work has very interesting points and is, in general, right, but goes entirely too far on occasions.
In this particular case, it is evident Castile didn't need burgundian resources. True, these enterprises were financed mainly by Italian and German bankers, but such were the ways of the time all over Europe - Kings were always on the verge of bankruptcy, and the richest bankers weren't located in Spain, France or England, but in the rich cities of the Low Countries, northern Italy and southern Germany, in places like Genoa, Augsburg and Antwerp.
Truly neither side knows how lucky they are. I remember working in Antwerp in and going to the local fete. There I saw an independence stand for Flanders, most astonishing of all they wanted to unite with Socialist Netherlands and pay Dutch taxes! To which I replied go right ahead and see how you like it!
Gerald in France. You might indeed add that, but you forgot the most important facts about that proposal: The walloons would never have accepted dutch in their part of the country, just as they didn't accept dutch in their part of the country during the years The francophones would only have accepted french. Let me say that Flanders has very bad experiences with that.
Every time there has been a "talentelling" the francophones rigged the votes in their favour. Now, because of their unwillingness to integrate into flemish society while demanding the reverse from the flemish , the francophones would gain again. I'm sorry to say, but such arrogance should not be rewarded. So such a referendum is not going to happen, ever. You are also forgetting that this regime of discrimination was instated by the French during Napoleon's Reign and only temporarily lifted during dutch rule. You are also forgetting that the leaders of the Belgian revolt had the intention of rejoining France.
Concerning "flamenco".. It's true that the spanish word "flamenco" translates to "flemish" in many cases. Some argue that the spanish court had a lot of flemish influence, in particular very colourful and flashy way of dressing, which is also the case in gypsy culture and that this caused the word to be used for gypsy music too. It is very likely that flamenco gets it name from being asociated with Flanders gypsies arriving from the north, the way of dressing and behaving, the belief that musicians picked up flamenco in Flanders.
However, most flamencologists also argue that the word derives from arabic "fellah mengu" meaning fugitive peasant.. Just because the word flamenco flemish and flamenco andalucian music sounds the same doesn't mean they share origins. As I said, the word flamenco is used also for the bird flamingo. And I put in post 17 a possible relationship. Still weak, anyway. This hatred of certain Flemish people often lefties for Flanders as an independent entity is remarkable.
It's as if English people would claim that they would not want to live in England if the UK broke apart. The reason is probably that the call for Flemish independence is associated with the extreme right in Flanders. It's, as far as I'm concerned, a very emotional and irrational reaction if Flanders becomes independent, it won't be because of the extreme right. Belgium should become a confederation like Switserland, it once was a federation but that didn't work, it even caused a brief civil war. Until its 'states' can, eventually, become independent states in a confederate EU if the EU ever becomes a confederation.
That's, as far as I'm concerned, the naked truth behind all the blabla and the mist the Francophone politicians spew: it's all about the Flemish money. Even though Flemish political parties have repeatedly said that they don't want to end the 'solidarity' with the Francophones. However, I think you are wrong when you say Charles inherited Castille from Ferdinand.
Barcelona: Fiery Flamenco & Spanish Guitar at the Baroque Palau Dalmases
He inherited Castille from his mother Juana. Regarding who financed Columbus voyages, it is true that Castille did it but no significant development or exploration took place in America until much later. Fascinating debate. To digress slightly - The article is quite right that we should be grateful in England for having at least historically a single language that is also spoken widely outside the UK. It makes travelling easier.
However, I don't think it's 'an accident of history' or due to the USA. IMHO there are three key reasons for the success of English in the modern world. English is ready to use words of foreign origin rather than inventing unnecessary new words. This also gives us a uniquely rich and varied vocabulary. I don't claim that the Empire was solely responsible for these concepts, but it and the attraction of these concepts was nonetheless vital in establishing English as the lingua franca!
This is now underpinned by the consequential? So to dismiss the story of English our greatest export as an accident is to slightly simplify things. To some extent, the flexibility of English is part of the now fading success story of the UK. We take on board other peoples' ideas, don't worry too much about beliefs, cultural differences and political orientation.
Other countries' attempts to spread their language and ideas across the world have usually been undermined by their more monolithic and less flexible cultures and ideas of identity. The problem that we have today is a result of WWI. At that time most of the commanding officers in the Belgian Army where French speaking because French had been till then the courant tongue in Belgium within southern part of the country and the bourgeoisie in Flanders.
While the normal soldiers, most probably Flemish and Walloons, where freezing their butts in the trenches, like most allied armies at that time, the officers, some exceptions of course, would have been stationned in cosy little warm house or at least better than the trenches. After WWI some of those frustrated Flemish soldiers created associations NOT to ask for a secession but an aknowledgment of Nederlands as a languague, and the "Flemish identity".
The Tower in Diksmuide, de Ijzertoren is not a symbol of Flemish extremisme, but it is a symbol to no more war that is sadly used by nowadays extremists or politicians. This gave to some people the idea to create a party that would defend the Flemish identity and if possible the seperation of Belgium In a laps of almost 90 years we have made of the simple demands for a recognition of Nederlands as an official language and a "Vlaamse identity" within Belgium results in harsh separatist talking on both sides.
I just want to say I think the expectation that people would 'become flemings' is questionable in itself, the towns surrounding Brussels may slowly become bilingual like Brussels itself, and what is wrong with that?
As I understand it, these areas surrounding the capital are the fastest growing economically and thus the engine for Belgium's future prosperity - I suspect this is not unrelated to the mixture of people who are now living there. I would agree that there needs to be a greater emphasis on learning the other language in both communities - many young flemish are now as bad at french as francophones are at dutch - but this will not happen if the languages continue to be more and more politicised. Yes, dutch speakers got bad treatment in the past, but you cannot build a happy future if you are obsessed with blame and guilt from history It will be of much interest to observe the EU's response to any developments of the current situation.
If the regions move towards an eventual breakup of Belgium, it will be interesting to see how the EU handles the new states I think this would be the first such case of the breakup of an existing member of the EU. What's more, I wonder if any of Belgium's neighbours will be tempted to interfere in the internal politics. One final observation; any breakup of Belgium might serve as a test run for the eventual dissolution of the UK.
Look, I am sure Bram Mertens means very well when he tries to explain the difference between ius personae and ius soli but I fear he is missing the point. It is all about consistency, really. It doesn't matter which concept you prefer but you should at least stick with it. And that is exactly the trouble with the French speaking part of the population; well, their political leaders anyway. They have one law for themselves I have an inalienable right to be served in French wherever I go and one for the others you can no longer use Dutch the moment you leave Flanders.
But more than a language thing, I think it is a cultural phenomenon, a peculiar trait of the Latin mind that pervades every possible subject. The French speaking political leaders always claimed they were dead set against some sort of youth prison for extremely violent young offenders but were not too shy about demanding half the places when it did eventually materialise. The same applies to the traffic cameras which were considered an invasion of your privacy. After years of bickering Flanders eventually had cameras installed, Wallonia 2, while Brussels was still thinking about it. Bizarrely, they did not have such privacy problems with redistributing the proceeds.
I'm a bit disappointed that there is so much tit-for-tat in this debate. Sure, there are also Walloons who are eager to learn Dutch, just as there are Flemish who are tolerant towards the francophone. And there are separatist-minded Flemish and Walloons. It tells, however, that Walloons and Flemish need a BBC website to communicate to and hopefully with each other. But the issue is not really whether this country will split, but rather how it can best serve its citizens.
Fact is that Flanders and Wallony have different needs and requirements. One example: jobs. You cannot tackle this problem through one employment plan, hence the logic to have employment regionalised. If one would stop being paranoid about any proposal that hits the table, we could go a long way.
However, the present constitutional situation is hampering economic growth, job creation and other vital state functions. If the Flemish want to invest with their own funds in railway infrastructure in the port of Antwerp, they should be allowed to go ahead unhindered, and without a compensatory investment in Wallony.
On the other side, it would make absolute sense to re-nationalise some responsibilities - foreign trade could be one of them. That being said, I believe it's high time that there is respect for the current constitutional and legal situation. The current situation in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde has been ruled unconstitutional and the so-called facilities are being stretched well beyond their limits.
Flemish schools in the Walloon villages with Dutch "facilities" are still being paid for by the Flemish, while Flanders pays French schools in the Flemish villages with French "facilities". Over the past decades, Flanders has shown to Wallony that it is possible to transform outdated economies into highly desirable and modern niche markets that create employment and wealth biotechnology to name but one. These clusters were made possible through an open, multi-party approach and close cooperation between all social players on level footing, and their effect cannot be underestimated.
This approach, too, would benefit greatly from constitutional reform. Rather than watching the world go 'round, it's better to take up the challenge and the responsibilities. Sure, reforming is always a step in the dark, but success and growth are the result of taking calculated risks and assuming one's own responsibilities.
I lived in the Flemish town of Leuven, just outside Brussels for a year a couple of years ago, and to be honest from speaking to young Belgians and from seeing it for myself, they definitely do prefer to avoid speaking French, with many of them claiming not even to be able to speak it when they blatantly can, as they are all very gifted when it comes to languages. It took me only a couple of weeks to realise you were better going into shops etc and just speaking English to them rather than attempt to use the little French you might still have from school.
I remember being completely shocked about it at the time! Actually the impression I got throughout the year was that the Flemish were just a bit tired of non-Belgians living in their country as well, and I have to say myself nor any of my other European friends ever felt particularly welcome living there! I think in my time there I didn't meet a Flemish person who was in favour of keeping the country together. They're tired of Wallonia and tired of the effect of being at the centre of Europe. I say let them break up and find out for themselves that they can't have their cake and eat it.
Somebody complained that the discussion so far has centred around Brussels too much.. To mr. Lamb: the Flemish are not tired of Wallony and not tired of the foreigners living in their country. They're tired of being called racist, fascist, intolerant etc Tired of being put in a negative daylight all the time. Yes, many voted for the Flemish conservatives including me, but that doesn't mean they're separatists. How would an Englishman feel if a French came to his country and only wants to speak French. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Compare the current situation as an old couple still married, living together, but living their own life next to eachother. Maybe the Walloons come from Mars and the Flemish from Venus. A divorce is not necessary, but more autonomy would be welcome it is tiring having a partner who always says "non" to every development you want to make. The Flemish and Walloons can perfectly have such a marriage, the Flemish probably are more happy with that.
If not having childish politicians and sensationial media interfering all the time. We have a love-hate relationship as the English have with the Scottisch, Welsh and Irish. So, yes, we're tired! And we just want to move on without justifying why we do certain things different. For the latest updates across BBC blogs, visit the Blogs homepage. Nick Robinson: "Britain is standing by to give more money to the IMF so that it can, in turn, lend more money Douglas Fraser: "With a mighty thud, the Ledger has been slammed shut.
Thanks for reading it. But it's not finished - far Brian Taylor: "Thank you for reading my blog. It has now moved to a new home, with a fresh format. Visit my Betsan Powys: "It was an inspired conversation. What shall we call a blog written by someone called Betsan? How about Richard Black: "Thanks for having read my blog over the last few years.
As of today, it is moving to a new Jonathan Amos: "Things are changing. The BBC's Spaceman has been assigned a new ship for his thoughts. So, as of today, this Search term:. Read more. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so.
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving. Bookmark with: del. At PM on 01 Oct , Richard Dargan wrote: I tried to comment on the earlier stream about divided Belgium on a couple of points - one related to Einstein see post no I enjoyed the discussion, but found there were too many people with deeply entrenched positions. Best wishes.
At PM on 01 Oct , john somer wrote: You tripped a bit in your heraldry At PM on 01 Oct , Dectora wrote: Mark may believe that Flemish people don't have great sensitivities in the area of language; he is, I think, mistaken.