Journal of Social Research & Policy, Vol. 6, Issue 1, July 2015

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians? PETR KOKAISL1 Czech University of Life Sciences

PAVLA KOKAISLOVÁ Czech University of Life Sciences

Abstract This paper discusses the German-speaking community (DG) in Belgium and the transformation of its ethnic identity. On the territory of present-day Belgium there lived, for a long time, an indigenous population that speaks a German dialect. However, after part of the German territory was connected to Belgium following World War I, the ethnic transformation of the original German-speaking population changed, but there was also a change of ethnicity in the Germans who became nationals of Belgium. As the German population (or population speaking a German dialect) lives outside the autonomous region of DG, it is possible to examine the government’s influence in shaping ethnicity and language. The paper aims to answer a question concerning the derivation of their ethnicity: What constitutes the ethnicity of the German-speaking population? (E.g. language, location, historical traditions, and common historical origin) and another question concerning the development of language: What impact has the official status of the language had in its development and use?

Keywords: Ethnic Minorities; German-Speaking Community; Belgium; Eupen; Malmedy; Ethnicity; Citizenship; Autonomy.

Main Aim The aim of this paper is to show the specificity of the perception of ethnicity of the Germanspeaking population living in the autonomous German-speaking community (German = Deutschsprachige Gesellschaft = DG) in Belgium. Given that the German-speaking population (rather, the population using German dialects) lives outside the autonomous region (DG), it is possible to examine the government’s impact on the formation of ethnicity and language use. The paper aims to answer a question concerning the derivation of their ethnicity: What constitutes the ethnicity of the German-speaking population? (E.g. language, location, historical traditions, and common historical origin) and another question concerning the development of language: What impact has the official status of the language had in its development and use? The fieldwork was conducted in several locations, including the DG in Belgium; the Belgian regions outside the DG, where the population speaks German dialects also; and the German district Monschau (part of which was passed to Belgium after the First World War). In addition to the observations, semi-structured interviews were conducted to cover a relatively wide scope of respondents by interviewers who were able to submit facts and context that are obvious only to the local population. In addition to the data from the interviews, this paper presents data from survey respondents (with open questions) conducted via the Web (Němci v Belgii, 2014) – these respondents were contacted during the fieldwork period and beyond. In-depth interviews were conducted with respondents from three age groups and these interviews were supplemented by a series of interviews (persons aged 24-60 years) with members of the DG, with residents of the Flemish

1

Postal Address: Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, CZ 165 21 Prague. E-mail Address: [email protected]

2 | JSRP

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

and Walloon part of Belgium and with Germans living in Germany. The communication with respondents was conducted in German. Nation and State Europe is quite typical in that it often combines national and political units into one unit, based on proof that all European nations with populations over 1 million people have their own state. A small number of exceptions (Catalans, Galicians and Scots) previously had some form of statehood and currently have a relatively high degree of autonomy. Some theorists of nationalism claim that a nation can be defined based on its political organisation. According to Gellner (2003, p. 67), it is nationalism which produces nations, and not vice versa. Belgium, however, is among those countries where all attempts to create its nation led to widening disparities between different areas. Making autonomous communities within the Belgian state, however, influenced the ethnicity of the Flemings, Walloons and the Germanspeaking groups. In Belgium (as well as in other European countries), there was a unified political promotion of ethnic identity (Belgian), but it was not very successful. Hroch (2009, p. 266) wrote in this context about the collapse of the construction of the Belgian nation. According to him, it is proof that it is not possible to conceive national identity regardless of the historical, political, social and cultural conditions, and the failure of other similar projects (Czechoslovakism, Scandinavism and Yugoslavism). Although Belgium failed to create a single nation with multiple languages (similar to that of Switzerland), it has created a new ethnic group – inhabitants of DG. An example of the Germanspeaking population in Belgium shows the importance of borders – a new ethnic group can be created during one century. It is, of course, questionable how viable this ethnic group would be after changes are made to state borders. The Belgian State and Ethnic Situation Belgium is an exception among the Western European states in terms of ethnic composition. The vast majority of Western European countries are formed by a main ethnic group with a relatively small proportion of ethnic minorities. The uniqueness of the ethnic composition of Belgium is shown historically in how this state was established. At the beginning of the 19th century, the French-speaking Walloons and ‘Dutch’ speaking Flemings united against the Dutch king. At this time, it was a much more confessional strife; different language skills and ethnicity between the Flemish and the Walloons were not seen as a principal obstacle because both ethnic groups were linked by Catholicism. Belgium could thus arise under the Constitution of 1831 as a single (unitary), centrally controlled state (Hulicius 2006, p. 125). However, linguistic disputes between the Flemings and the Walloons, that began to appear in the second half of the 19th century, escalated at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was not, however, only disputes of language, but also the different economic levels of the area that played (and continues to play) an important role. While the Walloons were at the top in all aspects in the 19th century, over time, the situation changed to their detriment. The loss of economic significance of the Walloon region was further enhanced by the reduction of mining and heavy industry in the second half of the 20th century. The paradox is that in modern-day Belgium, all the groups, in some sense, feel to be a minority – the formerly dominant Walloons are forced to put up with the role of the ‘poor relatives’. Even the Flemings have a feeling of inferiority, despite the current situation of superiority due to the use of language (French clearly prevails in the capital city of Brussels). The DG is a minority in all aspects, but it is also called the minority with the widest autonomy in Europe. In addition, respondents perceive very well that the German-speaking population is a minority.

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

3 | JSRP

We are a minority that stands between the two warring giants, and rarely anyone asks about our opinions. (Student, St. Vith, 20 years) A female interviewee from Eupen (24 years) said: The existence of the German-speaking community is important to me, but… We make less than 1% of the Belgian population, so I don’t know if we are important to other Belgians. A woman from Brussels (24 years) confirmed the previous utterance: That part of Belgium is highly autonomous, but in Brussels it is unknown. Every time we talk about them, as well as the German society, it indicates to me how far the German-speaking community is from our society. For example, I don’t know any Germans in this area. All events mainly concern the Flemish and the Walloons, which is a pity to me, because the Germans are part of our country. It would seem that borders no longer exist today – we feel equally free in Germany, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. Yet there are boundaries – boundaries of speech and boundaries in our heads. This applies to the German border – many here have some inferiority complex because their German vocabulary is not as rich as the vocabulary of the Germans – the same is true in the other direction for French. (Catholic priest from Weywertz/Bütgenbach, 45 years) A student (male, 30 years old, from the DG, studying in Germany) confirmed the existence of mental boundaries: The funny thing is that most German-speaking Belgians are very proud of their small part of Belgium and, at the same time, they look with suspicion on their big German brother. Maybe it’s because their behaviour is influenced by the Walloon part of Belgium. It is interesting that all disputes about the Belgium-state arrangement, and disputes about the competence of the German-speaking population in the predominantly French-speaking part of Belgium, did not encroach too aggressively, and political representatives always chose a very moderate stance without submitting the ultimate requirements. During the negotiations on the federalisation of the country, the German-community acquired very significant autonomy. Belgium’s arrangement from the original unitary Kingdom of Belgium to today’s federal state has not been continued. The most significant constitutional reform took place in the 1970s (the creation of three cultural communities based on language – Dutch, French and German), 1980 – cultural communities acquired competence in the fields of culture, health and education (marking the Flemish Community, the French Community and the German Community), 1988–1989 (special status for the Brussels-Capital), 1993 (Belgium was defined by the constitution as a federal state) and in 2001–2003 (transferring more power to the regions). According to the first article of the current Belgian Constitution, Belgium is a federal state consisting of communities and regions that have their own governments with different competencies. In addition to groups that have substantial rights under the Constitution (Flemings, Walloons, German-speaking population), a large number of members of other ethnic groups, mainly from EU countries, live in the country. Although the number of these inhabitants is several times higher than the total population of the DG, they have no special rights allowing them to maintain their language or culture. Given that Belgium is a country whose central statistical office does not keep records of population by ethnicity (it is only possible to determine the number of foreign nationals living in Belgium to a limited extent), it is very difficult to determine the number of members of various ethnic communities – the part that has Belgian citizenship does not appear in the statistics, while another part is ranked among the numbers of foreigners. We can only use estimates of the number of members of various ethnic groups. For example, the number of Turks born in Belgium (Belgian nationality) is estimated to be 152,000 persons (Taş, 2014, p. 219), and including Turkish nationals, it is closer to 200,000 people. Among the largest group of foreign nationals living in Belgium in 2010, were Italians (165,052), French (140,227), Dutch (133,536), Moroccans (81,943), Spaniards (45,233), Poles (43,085), Turks (39,551) and Germans (39,421) (Bevolking per nationaliteit, 2013). In the years 1990-2003, those who acquired Belgian nationality include: 148,019 Moroccans, 93,282 Turks, 48,170

4 | JSRP

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

Italians, 17,441 members of the Democratic Republic of Congo (former Belgian Congo-Zaire), 10,330 French and 9,809 Algerians (Perrin, 2006). Historical Background of the German-Speaking Groups in Belgium The area of today’s eastern Belgium, where the German-speaking population lives, often formed the border areas in the truest sense. Currently three ‘Eastern Cantons’ (Malmedy, Eupen and St. Vith) – Ostkantone – of which the DG today is only two (Eupen and St. Vith) were from the Congress of Vienna (1814/1815) part of the districts of Eupen and Malmedy in Prussia. Therefore, the inhabitants of these districts (Eupen and Malmedy) fought during World War I on the German side. An area of curiosity was the Kelmis area (where zinc minerals were mined), which had a shared administration, first as Prussian-Netherlands and, from 1830 until the end of World War I, as Prussian-Belgian. After the First World War, Belgium not only acquired the Kelmis area (Neutral Moresnet), which, under the Treaty of Versailles came under Belgian administration, in 1919, but also acquired the districts of Eupen and Malmedy. The argument for the acquisition was not only compensation for war damages suffered, but also historical reasons: this territory belonged largely to the Austrian Netherlands, and Belgium was the successor state since 1830. According to Belgian officials, the acquisition of the Eupen and Malmedy districts meant nothing more than a reintegration of territories under Belgian administration. Thus, in 1920 the districts of Eupen and Malmedy (sometimes referred to as the annexation by the German side) were connected to Belgium. During the first five years, the transitional regime was established and led by authoritarian General Herman von Baltia. After five years, this territory was finally incorporated into the Belgian state. However, many inhabitants of the area (known as Neubelgien/Ostkantone/Ostbelgien) strongly disagreed with the new arrangement; thus, the period 1920–1940 was marked by relatively sharp disputes between Pro-Belgiern and Pro-Deutschen. While during World War II, Belgium was occupied by Germany, the districts of Eupen and Malmedy (along with original Belgian territory, where there was a German-speaking population) had different administrations. The direct annexation of these territories to the German Reich occurred on the orders of Adolf Hitler in May 1940. The connection of the territory to Germany was certainly not perceived by all groups of the population as positive. In some places, however, residents solemnly welcomed German soldiers (Dietz, 2003, p. 524). The residents of the annexed areas were obliged to serve in the German army. Of the 8,700 local troops, 3,400 (almost 40%) were killed in the war. Additionally, during the Ardennes offensive in the winter of 1944/1945, many villages in the areas of Malmedy and St. Vith were completely destroyed. After the liberation in 1944, most of the locals did not want to promote the connection to Germany. In addition, after the renewal of Belgian sovereignty over this territory, there was a massive ‘cleansing’ of all things connected to Germany. The German language was to completely disappear from public life. However, in the 1950s, voices were heard suggesting that the cultural and linguistic needs of the local German-speaking population should be taken into account. The German-speaking population had the undoubted benefits of squabbles between the Flemings and the Walloons – the German-speaking political representation used any constitutional changes for its own benefit to increase autonomy. ‘Eastern Belgium’ and ‘Eastern-Belgians’ Eastern Belgium (Ostbelgien, roughly the area of the present-day DG) is a term designating the area between the borders, which currently plays an increasingly smaller role. This is an artificial construct created because of certain historical events and did not answer any specific natural unit. Within eastern Belgium, it is possible to observe many geographical differences – a large

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

5 | JSRP

difference between the largest city Eupen (with the surroundings) and the mountain range Eifel, other differences are remarkable between regions Bütgenbach and St. Vith. About 40% of the population of DG lives in the St. Vith canton, 60% live in the canton of Eupen. Both cantons have significantly different population densities: St. Vith has 47.9 persons per km2, while the Eupen population density is more than four times higher with 205.3 persons per km2. Both German-speaking cantons differ in terms of their share of foreigners: St. Vith has 7% of foreigners, while the Eupen canton has more than four times the number of foreigners, with 29% (Bevölkerungsstruktur, 2015). Differences can be observed, even culturally – French interferes with German cultural space. As an eastern Belgian (Ostbelgier), I feel there are parts of the German language and cultural areas with which I share more than language. But some Ostbelgiers may have some problems with German identification. I, personally, with that responsibility have no problem, maybe because I’m fairly open to different cultures (especially to Walloons and Flemings whose language I like to use). (Catholic priest from Weywertz/Bütgenbach, 45 years) Speaking in Belgium, about ethnic groups of Frenchmen or Belgians, is hard to understand. Likewise, as an ethnonym, the local population in DG is very sensitive and unambiguously rejects being called German, opting to be known as Ostbelgier (eastern Belgian) or Germanspeaking (Deutschsprachig) instead. We are not Germans, but German-speaking Belgians (deutschsprachige Belgier). We are talked about as the Germans’ fault. We have our own culture and mentality, which combines various elements of French and German culture and thought. We have developed a German (or Prussian) mentality: we are industrious, diligent and pay attention to order and reliability. We also have fair amount of the Walloons adaptability. (Female respondent from the Eifel region, 64 years, married, retiree) People in the Belgian German-speaking community feel we are German-speaking Belgians. This means that we are not the Flemings, the Walloons, nor Germans. (Student from the Eifel region) Trying to describe identity is always very difficult because there are many differences – between generations, between the populations on both sides of the mountains Hohes Venn. I think that in the south, near St. Vith, people are more discreet and much less sociable. Hard work and diligence of the population of the Eifel region is characterised by ‘Ostbelgien’. Hard work and thrift, however, are only one side of the coin. People, mainly in the north, have a characteristic of being hardworking and a penchant for large-scale celebrations. The neighbourhood is very important for two reasons – first, the view of neighbours is very important, so people act very cautiously for fear of ridicule. On the other hand, there is a very strong (and common) assistance between neighbours. Much more evident is the situation in the south, near St. Vith, than in the north, near Eupen. In the north, people are more talkative and spontaneous. Although I have met many friendly and very hospitable people in the immediate vicinity of the Eifel, it is very difficult for a person in a village to participate fully in community life. I observed the same thing for the younger generation, although not significantly so. If I had to decide whether I feel more German or Belgian, then I would choose Belgian. (Catholic priest from Weywertz/Bütgenbach, 45 years)

6 | JSRP

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

Residents of DG are not considered German, as shared by some respondents from Germany: Residents of DG are not Germans because they do not live in Germany. This is similar to the South Tyrol in Italy, they are also not Germans. The DG has quite varied club activities; there are local political parties (for example ProDG – Pro Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft). Almost every village has its orchestra, brass bands, choirs, theatre groups and dance clubs. These are elements of the local culture and are often surprisingly high quality. Other clubs and associations retain traditional customs. Most of them are dedicated to the celebration of carnivals, harvests, various parades and festivals that are typical cultural elements of the DG of Belgium. All the clubs in our country are German-speaking, but I do not know that it would be a ‘German’ association. In the 1960s, there was a ‘Hochschulbund Deutschen’ (German university association), which sought to connect our territory again to Germany. (Female respondent from the Eifel region, 64 years, married, retiree) The cultural scene is quite large in the DG. I feel that a lot of clubs make great efforts to build an active lifestyle in the community and in the cities. Cultural life in reality often depends on a few idealists in the village or parish. (Catholic priest from Weywertz/Bütgenbach, 45 years) The abandonment of German identity and the emergence of a new identity (based on membership in another state), however, is not merely a matter for East-Belgians. In many ways, we find a similarity with Alsace in France, creating Alsatian identity. In both cases, the events were associated with World War II; there was a clean break from German identity, although Alsace was historically the German region, with distinct elements of German culture. The French state, however, repressed elements of the original Alsatian identity, as reflected primarily in the field of education in French – for a long time education in the German language and official use of the Alsatian dialect were not made possible. The current situation, whereby Alsatians feel fully integrated into the structure of the French state is already deemed totally natural. As in the French region of Alsace, the DGs in Belgium are gradually forming distinct groups, which meet most of the characteristics of separate ethnic groups. The Position of the DG within Belgium Today, the territory of the DG has some 76,200 inhabitants. To the north, there is the densely populated Eupen county, and to the South lies the rural, tourism-oriented Belgian Eifel. The territory covers an area of 854 km2. The DG has had its own parliament since 1973. The former institution was called the German Cultural Community Council (Rat der deutschen Kulturgemeinschaft), which eleven years later became the German-speaking Community Council (Rat der Gemeinschaft Deutschsprachigen). The official parliament was created in 2004 as a German-speaking Community Parliament (Parlament der Gemeinschaft Deutschsprachigen). Parliament has 25 directly elected deputies, who decide on the government, which currently has four ministers (including the Prime Minister). Ministers are responsible for finance, local authorities, external relations, social affairs and employment, education, culture, youth, media and tourism (Blaise, 2009). Because parties with federal jurisdiction do not actually exist in Belgium, in the parliament of the DG there are mainly German-speaking representatives of regional parties (which of course may be offshoots from, for example, Belgian French-speaking parties). The positives associated with the development of autonomy is shown by, for example, Schifflers (1994), who described the historical development of language, explained the position of the German language as background to the political situation, described the gradual acquisition of autonomy DG in the areas of education, along with the development of democracy throughout

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

7 | JSRP

the education system. He stated that, since the 1990s, a German-community is an equal part of the federal state of Belgium and the people of the region are finally proud Belgians. According to Schifflers, Belgium is not only bilingual but it protects its cultural and linguistic autonomy. However, the reality is different in some aspects. Although Belgium is a federation, the different parts of the state live largely their own lives, as shown by a female respondent (25 years) from DG: During a survey for Belgian politics, they were asked to say at least three countries where German is the official language. Most of the politicians did not state even their own country! Especially French-speaking Belgians might not even know that we exist…they often forget about us. Another respondent (24 years) from DG stated: Unfortunately, in the rest of the country I cannot hear the German language. Sadly, for example, in Verviers, a town-situated about 20 km from Eupen, nobody understands a word of German. Sometimes in my country, I feel like a foreigner, and it seems to me that the rest of Belgium wants the German language to completely disappear. This is mainly because of the Dutch and French whom I meet everywhere, while shopping, at school or in offices. Also, all public services are provided only in French and Dutch. Unfortunately, only in German I have failed to arrange anything. Respondents outside the DG also fail to consider the importance of the official status of German in the DG: A specific feature of this group is German language. This, however, is not used much, people know a few words, but normally you will not hear German on the street. I believe it is not an official language. We’re talking mainly French and Flemish and I think that the two languages are enough. Moreover, English is used widely in Belgium. Despite considerable satisfaction with the current level of autonomy, ‘German-speaking’ politicians do not consider the status quo as final. Certainly welcome, if in addition to the DG, would be the creation of a third Belgian – the German-speaking region. Respondents from DG, however, reflected on the current state with unequivocal satisfaction: I am completely satisfied with the current situation. We are a very well protected minority. Happily, we survived attempts for complete assimilation by the Walloons and we preserved our identity. We can decide ourselves about important matters (including the adoption of laws); we can decide how it will be taught in schools. If someone asked us whether we would like to reconnect to Germany, in the case of partition of Belgium (in today’s difficult political situation), I think most would say ‘no’. But what are the other options? The answer to this question is very complicated. (Female interviewee from the DG, 62 years) I think the current situation is best for the population living in the DG. The DG is an independent unit within the Belgian state. This unit has autonomy in many areas, which in the future will continue to develop. People are dissatisfied rather with the fact that in Belgium, it is increasingly difficult to form a government at the federal level, because the agreement between the Flemings and Walloons is always difficult. It is important that DGs were active in the formation of federal Belgium. (Male interviewee from the DG, 49 years) I'm too young to be able to compare and evaluate different periods, but I can say that now, all is well. (Male interviewee from the DG, 22 years) On the contrary, the worst periods are considered to be before, during and just after World War II: The worst time was after World War II, with all the problems with buildings destroyed during the war and other post-war problems. (Female interviewee from the DG, 62 years) The times before, during and after World War II were definitely the worst. Before the war, there were frequent disputes and clashes between supporters and opponents of staying in Belgium (ProBelgiern and Pro-Deutschen); during the war, more than 2,000

8 | JSRP

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

young men from the region ‘Ostbelgien’ were killed, mainly on the Eastern Front. After the war came the big purge, when no distinction was made between ‘Pro-Deutschen’ and the Nazis; many soldiers from the DG who had to serve in the German Wehrmacht (unified armed forces of Germany), went to prison on their return. (Male interviewee from the DG, 72 years) The Language Situation in Eastern Belgium The use of German dialects in eastern Belgium today dates back to, at least, the Middle Ages. In the 13th century, this area belonged to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Limburg. Later, the government alternated between Burgundy, Spain and Austria. During the Ancien régime (political system in the Kingdom of France from the 15th century until the 18th century), the highest echelons used the French language. In Limburgian areas, the use of French, German and Dutch alternated, but the higher echelons used French. In colloquial language, there was a smooth transition between Low Franconian dialects (niederfränkisch is seen as a transitional dialect between Flemish and Low German – Plattdeutsch), Ripuarian dialects, High German and Flemish/Dutch. High German was used mainly in Catholic churches, and even at the time, it was a significant effort to introduce French into all areas of public life in the period of 1792–1814 (Polenz, 2000, pp. 119–120). In Belgium, however, there are two German-speaking areas: 1. German-speaking Community of Belgium (DG) 2. The ‘original’ German-speaking area (Altbelgien), which belonged to Belgium without interruption since 1839 and included a small region around Montzen (Limburgian Moontse), Bocholz and Arel/Arlon. The original use of multiple languages gradually changed with a very unbalanced ratio between French, which was exclusively used as an official language and for education, and the German dialects, which only had a place in the family and among neighbours. Altbelgien territory is not fully consistent, and it can be divided into several distinct parts (Cherubim, Grosse & Mattheier, 1998, p. 72):  the northern (Welkenrat/Welkenraedt/Welkenrath/Welkenraat, Montzen, Bleiberg/ Plombières)  the middle (southwest of the town of St. Vith – mainly village Bocholz/Beho)  the southern (German-speaking part of the Belgian province of Luxembourg/ Luxemburg, especially around the city of Arel/Arlon). In the 19th century, this area was dominated by German dialects, but today it is a very francophone area.

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

9 | JSRP

Figure 1: German-speaking groups in Belgium (the Altbelgien) Map source: Google Earth. Situations in which the French language started to replace German did not occur in the second Belgian German-speaking region (in present-day DGs); because this area was under the administration of Prussia from 1815 and after the unification of Germany in 1871, it became part of the German Empire (until 1919). Thus, the German-speaking population in Belgium consists of two very separate groups, even based on language. Designation Alt- and Neubelgien (Old- and New-Belgium for original and newly acquired Belgian territory) was originally a rather political symbol of different loyalties to the Belgian state. Until the 1970s, there was some reluctance to the use of German language and, vice versa, the voluntary use of French was seen as an expression of identification with the Belgian State, mainly in the Altbelgien. Today, this designation (Alt- and Neubelgien) is primarily used to denote significantly different German dialects (Polenz, 2000, p. 169). The deepening of the linguistic differences between the territory Alt- and Neubelgien occurred since 1963, when the region around Eupen and St. Vith (Neubelgien) started increasing its autonomy leading to the creation of the contemporary DG. On the contrary, the use of German dialects considerably decreased in the Altbelgien. Of the approximately 75,000 inhabitants of the area ‘Altbelgien’, about 50%–70% know a German dialect today. However, only the older generation can use standard German, mostly passively. German dialect only plays a certain role as an identification symbol in some families and informal occasions. That is a huge difference when compared to residents from the area of Neubelgien who use literary German in everyday life. In addition, dialects between the southern and northern parts of the ‘Altbelgien’ are mutually difficult to understand and the language of communication between these groups is French (Polenz, 2000, p. 170). The population of ‘Altbelgien’ around the city of Arlon/Arel near the Luxembourg border saw an advantage in neighbouring Luxembourg and adopted literary Luxembourgish as the official language. Dialects used around Arlon are very close to literary Luxembourgish and local people

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

10 | JSRP

declare that they speak Luxembourgish, a language having an official status, even in the neighbouring country. The official language of the Belgian DG is the literary form of German (Hochdeutsch), which is spoken at the office, at school and in church. German is also the language of books, newspapers and magazines. Lessons in schools are taught only in German, but 1 to 3 classes of primary school are taught in a foreign language with a subsidy of six hours per week. In the last three classes of secondary school (Oberschule), some subjects are taught in French. Some prints are published in dialect, but the use of dialect in the DG is very uneven. I don’t use dialect; I use only ‘Hochdeutsch’ and our children are just the same. I am perfectly bilingual (German and French), because in our family and in school, I grew up using both languages. This is not the situation of the majority of people in our area. Our mother tongue is German and the school also teaches in German. Our children are confronted with French in preschool when they play with other children. (Female respondent from the Eifel region, 64 years, married, retiree) A lot of people in villages still speak in dialect. Personally, I mostly use ‘Hochdeutsch’. But I use dialect also, especially in contact with older people. Books, newspapers and magazines are published in German (Hochdeutsch). Some prints are also available in dialect. I think it’s good that again more and more the dialect is valued, and it has greater importance for children and young people. In schools and offices, everything official is only in German (Hochdeutsch). At home or with friends we speak in dialect; it always depends on the particular occasion, whether we use German or dialect. Older people always speak in dialect; younger people only use it when they are at home. A survey among schoolchildren aged 14-18 years in Eupen and St. Vith showed that the use of a dialect is significantly higher in St. Vith (Riehl, 2007): Table 1: Use of a dialect among schoolchildren (St. Vith and Eupen)

Family

Friends

Shop, office

always often sometimes never always often sometimes never always often sometimes never

Use of a dialect St. Vith Eupen 42% 3% 13% 6% 23% 31% 22% 60% 28% 3% 18% 6% 27% 13% 27% 72% 4% 0% 28% 3% 30% 15% 38% 82%

Linguistically, it is possible to draw the line between Ripuarian dialect and MoselleFranconian dialect based on isogloss (occurrence of a particular element of a dialect) such as jet (Ripuarian) and ebes (Moselle-Franconian) for the German word etwas (something) or the use of the word Schaaf (ripuarisch) and Schank (moselfränkisch) for the German word Schrank

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

11 | JSRP

(cupboard). This boundary follows the natural territorial units and its course is also affected by natural barriers (mountains Hohes Venn and forested areas). The dialect of the area around Kalterherberg is even influenced by French, because there is a Franco-Germanic speech border (Pilgram, 1958, pp. 73–74). Table 2: A sample of Ripuarian dialect (translation into standard German and English) (Ripuarisch, 2008): Wenn för dr Ringschänk keine Baum för dr Dür mih stèit, Weil demnächs hee en neue Strooß lang jèit, Wenn dä Ahl singe Blomewage nit mih fährt, Es et Lewe hee nur noch de Hälfte wert.

Wenn vor der Rheinschänke Kein Baum vor der Tür mehr steht, Weil demnächst hier eine neue Straße lang geht, Wenn dem Alten sein Blumenwagen nicht mehr fährt, Ist das Leben hier nur noch die Hälfte wert

If in front of the Rhine tavern No tree in front of the door is more, Because here soon a new long road goes, When the old man no longer moves with his flower cars, Is life here only worth half. Notably, the speakers of the mentioned dialects, in most cases, do not use linguistic designation (ripuarisch, moselfränkisch), they just speak a dialect. Conclusion This paper aimed to determine how ethnicity is created among the inhabitants of the Belgian DG, a relatively small area (854 km2), with around 76,200 inhabitants. Even though the population of the DG is much smaller than the number of other Belgian minorities (e.g. Italians), the Germanspeaking group has a very extensive autonomy. This autonomy is probably the reason why the population of this region (which intentionally not referred to as ‘German’), is satisfied with the current situation. The formation of the ethnic identity of the DG population is not entirely clear, although the official designation of autonomous units indicates that language and population derive ethnicity based on membership of a political unit, possibly of different types of historical awareness. Ethnicity of the German-speaking population The creation of a new ethnicity of Belgian German-speaking population played a pivotal role in language, but as an element of earmarking this group towards other residents of Belgium. However, the German population was indistinguishable from Germans living in neighbouring Germany. To them, the population in the DG is distinguished by different nationalities. After creating an autonomous political unit for the German-speaking population in Belgium, the differentiation from Germans residing in Germany deepened. The influence of a political autonomous entity in shaping ethnic identity is also evident in the German-speaking population of Belgium, which traditionally used one of the German dialects in everyday life. However, after creating a German-speaking autonomous community, they remained outside its borders – in the Flemish part of Belgium. Their ethnic identity over time also transformed, but in this case, it merged with the French-speaking Walloon population. The population in the territory has, not including the DG, in most cases, a different ethnicity: Frenchspeaking – Wallonia. Where German dialects are used, the population does not use standard German; therefore, when meeting people from areas with few mutually intelligible dialects, lingua franca French is used as a common language.

12 | JSRP

Petr Kokaisl, Pavla Kokaislová

German-speaking minority in Belgium developed an emerging identity in the context of a very strong cultural and political autonomy. This autonomy undoubtedly increased the confidence of the ‘East-Belgian’. At a time when there is a very real possibility of changing the constitutional structure of Belgium, or causing a direct disintegration of the country, the population and local politicians in the DG are well aware of the potential risks – unification with Germany would probably have lost many exclusive discretions, but on the other hand it is very unlikely to sustain a completely independent state within the borders of the current Belgian German-speaking community. Influence of official language status for its development and use Own language is a characteristic feature of most ethnic groups. This may not be the only official (literary) language, but a variety of linguistic nuances may indicate the origin and geographic location, and within one ethnic group, a distinct accent immediately reveals any foreigners. The German-speaking population in Belgium was gradually creating an entirely new ethnicity tied to the jurisdiction of the Belgian State, and the local population called themselves EastBelgiers (Ostbelgier). As the ethnic group is distinctive from Germans, Walloons and Flemings, the question remains as to what transformation of ethnicity would occur in the event of the collapse of the Belgian federal state. The inhabitants on territory of the DG mainly use standard German, while the use of sometimes widely differing dialects is disappearing. Some residents are aware of the different vocabulary compared to Germans from Germany and the fact that their literary German has recognisable differences compared with the German language of Germany. Outside the autonomous region, the use of German dialects is also disappearing. Only those residents speaking German dialects, who live near the Luxembourg border (and outside of the German-Belgian Communities) identified with the distinct culture of Luxembourg through their language. The dialect they speak is either a variant of Luxembourgish or Luxembourgish. A lessstable political situation at the federal level in Belgium and possible disintegration of the Belgian state has already been mentioned. One of the options for future arrangements is sometimes mentioned because of the connection the Belgian German-speaking community has with Luxembourg, due to language and cultural proximity. Thus, the official language status leads to the formation of one language (often unused in the area) at the expense of local dialects of the same language. For the population that uses a language that has no official status, knowledge of the language is in gradual decline. References 1.

Bevölkerungsstruktur. (2015). [Population Structure] Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgiens. [German-speaking Community of Belgium] Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.dgstat.be/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2569/4686_read-32765/ .

2.

Bevolking per nationaliteit, geslacht, leeftijdsgroepen op 1/1/2010. (2013) [Population by nationality, sex, age] Belgian Federal Government. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/publications/statistiques/bevolking/population_natio _sexe_groupe_classe_d_ges_au_1er_janvier_2010.jsp.

3.

Blaise, P. (Ed.). (2009). Belgien verstehen. [To understand Belgium] Brüssel: De Boeck/Ligue des Families.

4.

Cherubim, D., Grosse, S., & Mattheier, K. J. (1998). Sprache und bürgerliche Nation: Beiträge zur deutschen und europäischen Sprachgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. [Language and Civic Nation: Contributions to the German and European Language History of the 19th Century], Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110807035

Belgian Germans or East-Belgians?

13 | JSRP

5.

Dietz, B., Gabel, H., & Tiedau, U. (2003). Griff nach dem Westen. [Handle to the West] Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann Verlag.

6.

Gellner, E. (2003). Nacionalismus. [Nationalism], Brno: CDK.

7.

Hroch, M. (2009). Národy nejsou dílem náhody. [Formation of Nations is not due to Chance] Prague: SLON.

8.

Hulicius, E. (2006). Belgie. [Belgium], Prague: Libri.

9.

Němci v Belgii. (2014) .[Germans in Belgium]. Hospodářská a kulturní studia, ČZU [Economic and Cultural Studies, Czech University of Life Sciences], Prague. Retrieved May 25, 2015, from http://www.hks.re/wiki/nemci_v_belgii2014

10. Perrin, N. (2006). European Migration Network: Annual Statistical Report on migration and asylum in Belgium. Brussels. 34 s. 11. Pilgram, H. (1958). Die Landkreise in Nordheim-Westfalen: Band 3. Der Landkreis Monschau. [The Counties in North Rhine-Westphalia: Volume 3. The District Monschau], Bonn: Wilhelm Stollfuss Verlag. 12. Polenz von, P. (2000). Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart: 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. [History of German language from the late Middle Ages to the present: 19th and 20th centuries] Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110824889 13. Riehl, C. M. (2007). Varietätengebrauch und Varietätenkontakt in Südtirol und Ostbelgien. [Use of a lect (variety) and contact of varieties in South Tyrol and Eastern Belgium] Linguistik online 32(3). ISSN 1615-3014. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from http://www.linguistik-online.de/32_07/riehl.html. 14. Ripuarisch. (2008). Bläck Föös. Mundart [Barefoot. Dialect]; Transkr. und hochdt. Übersetzung [Translation into standard German] W. Näser 6/81; behandelt beim Internationalen Ferienkurs der Philipps-Universität [International Summer School at the Philipps University] 1981. Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://www.staff.unimarburg.de/~naeser/probe11.htm. 15. Schifflers, L. (1994). 75 years of education in the German-speaking areas of Eastern Belgium. European Education, 26(3), pp. 36–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/EUE10564934260336 16. Taş, E. (2014). Evlilik Göçüyle Türkiye'den Belçika'ya Gelen Gelinler ve Boşanma Sorunu. [Incoming migration from Turkey to Belgium]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Arastirmalari Dergisi [Journal of Turkic Studies, Hacettepe University], 20, pp. 217–235.