|
Ah, the days when a chunk of any respectable country had a "British" before it. This looks like it came out of a middle school world history textbook. Pretty legit. 
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Bloodnose posted:And why did the Walloons not get absorbed into France, considering they're all Catholic and (kinda)Francophones. Apart from what others have said, there's also a few historical reasons. The western part of Wallonia historically belonged to the Seventeen Provinces and large swathes of it had belonged to the County of Flanders, and the eastern part had either belonged to the Bishopric of Liège (theoretically a part of the Papal States) while Luxembourg was just one of the many little duchies within the Holy Roman Empire. France did succeed in nibbling bits of future Belgium permanently from the 17th century onwards, most notoriously French Flanders under Louis XIV, though I don't know for what reason he wanted the territory other than to be a jackass to Spain. Kurtofan posted:Was Brussels even Francophone at the time? The process was already set in motion, though it would only really pick up speed in the 20th century. The Great Powers didn't care much for linguistic or cultural borders at the time. Namur wasn't German-speaking either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:France did succeed in nibbling bits of future Belgium permanently from the 17th century onwards, most notoriously French Flanders under Louis XIV, though I don't know for what reason he wanted the territory other than to be a jackass to Spain. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:And why did the Walloons not get absorbed into France, considering they're all Catholic and (kinda)Francophones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Those are good explanations for why Flanders is not in the Netherlands, but how did they end up stuck with Wallonia? And how did that union survive early 20th century nationalism? Belgium seems on the brink of splitting up today even in the peace-loving, multicultural 21st century. Wallonia is the easier of the two to explain. Wallonia profited from being Belgian, not-French and not-Dutch. Don't forget it was one of the most industrialized areas of the world during the late 1800s and early 1900s. There was never a broad support for Wallonian independence, even though some intellectuals (destrez) weren't too fond of Belgium. Even the fascist movement (Rex) was still Belgicist. As for Flanders: the first world war showed the myth of Flemish soldiers dying in the trenches, sent to their death by Francophone officers (side note: every officer was francophone, since it was the elite language; Dutch was the language of the lower classes, and the only language in unoccupied Belgium). It awoke an anti-Belgium, pro-Flemish movement. Flemish nationalism tied itself pretty quickly with Fascist and nazi ideology. After all, if the german/north-european race was superior, and Flemish was a german language, it was obvious they were superior too. Also, a new fascist Europe could remove some of the historical aberrations, such as French Flanders and a seperate Dutch state (Dietschland). The members of flemish independence movements (verdinaso, VNV,...), and some of these movements themselves (DeVlag, and parts of Verdinaso and VNV) collaborated during the German occupation, with idealists/idiots (depending on your view) going as far as to join the SS to fight on the eastern front. The Langemarck brigade is one of these units, composed from Flemish soldiers. Belgium winning the war effectually ostracized all collaborators, and by extension, the movements they supported. Belgian nationalism soared, Flemish nationalism was effectively tied to the nazi collaboration. It's one of the reasons why Vlaams Blok, the most extreme nationalist party, made amnesty for the Oostfronters one of their continuous claims; it's also one of the reasons why Flemish nationalist politicians, even the more moderate ones (Jan Jambon, Johan Sauwens) are seen speaking during Oostfronter reunions. It's also one of the reasons anti-Flemish independence rhetoric used to invoke fascism and collaboration quite often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
Old James posted:I assume these municipalities are administrative regions between province and village. If so, that would be the equivalent of a county in the U.S. Your assumption is incorrect, there's no level below these municipalities. They are perhaps more equivalent to your municipal corporations than your counties (at least in the sense of being the smallest administrative unit. Similar to a county in other ways, probably since no two governments have direct 1:1 equivalents) but in that case it would be the 13th biggest municipal government in the United States by area and much, much larger than any US municipality of equivalent population. And for the sake of comparison of the relative sizes of the lowest level of government, The Highland council in Scotland is the largest council area and is not far off ten times the size of the largest municipality in America, Anchorage Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Anyone know why there's that big relatively uninhabited region in Gironde, SSW of Bordeaux? Looks like pretty decent land in Google Earth. It's the Landes of Gascony, wetland that was drained and turned into a massive pine plantation in the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Ah, the days when a chunk of any respectable country had a "British" before it. Guys, it's over. We have found it. This is the stupidest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:And for the sake of comparison of the relative sizes of the lowest level of government, The Highland council in Scotland is the largest council area and is not far off ten times the size of the largest municipality in America, Anchorage Alaska. The lowest level of government in the UK would be civil parishes surely? Of which there are 871 in Scotland. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Scotland_Civil_Parishes_map.svg Edit: Oh they don't actually do anything in Scotland? Ok. England's do though and it looks pretty much the same as France:  10,479 parishes, not including Wales. Edit 2: Apparently France has 36,552 communes so I guess they win! I'm guessing the main reason is that urban areas are unparished, and that England is 130,395 km² compared to France's 551,695 km2, which is a much bigger difference than I assumed. nozz fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Agricola Frigidus posted:Wallonia is the easier of the two to explain. Wallonia profited from being Belgian, not-French and not-Dutch. Don't forget it was one of the most industrialized areas of the world during the late 1800s and early 1900s. There was never a broad support for Wallonian independence, even though some intellectuals (destrez) weren't too fond of Belgium. Even the fascist movement (Rex) was still Belgicist. This doesn't make much sense, since regionalism has always been tied to the labor movement in Wallonia. The traditional sentiment was that Wallonia was being held back both by the financial elites in Brussels and 'conservative' Flanders. In fact, I would say that at several points they came closer to destroying Belgian unity than the Flemish nationalists ever have. As late as the early nineties, Spitaels (then-head of the Parti Socialiste) caused the federal government to fall over a regionalist issue. General strike of 1960-1961 (note the Walloon flags on the left):  On the other hand, it is true that their regionalism seems much more fickle and utilitarian. Since it became clear that the current social security system would be completely untenable for Wallonia if it was split, the Walloon Left suddenly realized that it was attached to Belgium after all, and now they're ignoring or even retconning history to pretend that it's always been the case. Fortunately for them, memories in Belgium can be very selective at times... Of course, there are always those who can't be bought: 
Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Thanks for linking to a picture so huge it crashed my browser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Gat posted:The lowest level of government in the UK would be civil parishes surely? Of which there are 871 in Scotland. I guess there's a reason why in the US we have "counties" rather than parishes (Louisiana excluded). 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
I've always wondered how American counties work in practice. With their arbitrary square shapes that don't have anything to do with geography, it must be extremely hard to keep track of who has jurisdiction where.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered how American counties work in practice. With their arbitrary square shapes that don't have anything to do with geography, it must be extremely hard to keep track of who has jurisdiction where. It absolutely is! However, our municipal works agencies have very detailed maps so they never actually help one another, and most police agencies have mutual jurisdiction so I can be chased and jailed by a policeman from three counties over if he happens to see me. Property taxes and zoning follow county lines and it leads to hilarious things like mansions next to light industry and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered how American counties work in practice. With their arbitrary square shapes that don't have anything to do with geography, it must be extremely hard to keep track of who has jurisdiction where. The short version is that it's up to the states. If you look at a map, however, you'll notice that most of the really square counties are in the Midwest/Texas (and Michigan):  A lot of the Western states aren't really bounded by geography like mountains but more that there's a shitton of desert and you don't want to drive for four hours to get your jury summons. also, per Wikipedia: quote:At the 2000 U.S. Census, the median land area of U.S. counties was 622 sq mi (1,610 km2), which is two-thirds of the median land area of a ceremonial county of England, and a little more than a quarter of the median land area of a French département. Counties in the western United States typically have a much larger land area than those in the eastern United States. For example, the median land area of counties in Georgia is 343 sq mi (890 km2), whereas in Utah it is 2,427 sq mi (6,290 km2).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered how American counties work in practice. With their arbitrary square shapes that don't have anything to do with geography, it must be extremely hard to keep track of who has jurisdiction where. All those arbitrary squares are in the great plains where theres no natural borders outside of rivers, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Some US states also have townships. In Michigan govern the vast majority of places that aren't in legally defined cities or villages. Red outlines here are counties, of which there are 83 and blue outlines are townships. Michigan has 276 cities, 257 villages, and 1,240 townships. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:Some US states also have townships. In Michigan govern the vast majority of places that aren't in legally defined cities or villages. Virginia has Independent Cities which aren't a part of any county. Growing up I thought counties were an extinct idea because Princess Anne County was turned into Virginia Beach City back in the 70s and I thought thats how it was done all throughout the country. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Meme Emulator posted:Virginia has Independent Cities which aren't a part of any county. Growing up I thought counties were an extinct idea because Princess Anne County was turned into Virginia Beach City back in the 70s and I thought thats how it was done all throughout the country. This is mostly a measure to keep black people gerrymandered.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I guess there's a reason why in the US we have "counties" rather than parishes (Louisiana excluded). I'm confused what your trying to say because the UK has counties and you just posted a map of them? (well the ceremonial counties, which in some cases are purely geographical). To complete the picture of UK local government, in between parish councils and county councils you have district councils:  Large urban areas (and some counties) have no distinction between district and county, and instead have a unitary authority that covers both. Results may vary in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:For instance, the list/map said that Spain was 'invaded' because of a supposed large role for the Dutch in the Inquisition. I cannot think of any examples of Dutch involvement with the Spanish Inquisition other than the restrictions on printed works and the various accusations and trials of people from the Netherlands in the tribunals throughout the Americas, Spain, and Sicily. For obvious jurisdictional reasons, the Spanish Inquisition could not have existed in the Low Countries and I can't think of any Spanish Inquisition officers who were Dutch off of the top of my head. The explanation for the "invasion" of Spain might as well have been that Charles V was born in Ghent and his early tutor, William de Croÿ, was from the Low Countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:The explanation for the "invasion" of Spain might as well have been that Charles V was born in Ghent and his early tutor, William de Croÿ, was from the Low Countries. This immediately came to mind for me as well. During the first years of his reign, Charles V and his entourage were known as 'flamencos' by the local nobility in Spain. That doesn't necessarily mean much, since 'flamenco' turned into a catch-all term for anything that was foreign, and I'm pretty sure his native language was French instead of Dutch. Either way, the map is reaching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered how American counties work in practice. With their arbitrary square shapes that don't have anything to do with geography, it must be extremely hard to keep track of who has jurisdiction where. Counties in Indiana are mostly for tax & policing. I can't speak for other areas but counties and townships don't do very much, essentially running the areas that aren't towns or cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Counties in Indiana are mostly for tax & policing. I can't speak for other areas but counties and townships don't do very much, essentially running the areas that aren't towns or cities. Depending on the state they can also be responsible for local medical and mental health services, and other social services. I know in Portland, social services are mostly delegated to Multnomah county.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Kassad posted:It's the Landes of Gascony, wetland that was drained and turned into a massive pine plantation in the 19th century. Cool beans, thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:13
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
At least in California the counties have are commonly used as cultural shorthands. For instance living in cultural Los Angeles is usually restricted to LA county (sans Palmdale). They are much more useful than city specific tags as most of the cities in California are a loose conglomerate of jurisdictions of jammed together towns.  #YOLO
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
You can say stuff like "he is from Marin" or "he is from Kern County" and everyone knows exactly the kind of person you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
withak posted:You can say stuff like "he is from Marin" or "he is from Kern County" and everyone knows exactly the kind of person you are talking about. So what kind of person is from Marin or Kern counties?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:So what kind of person is from Marin or Kern counties? Marin: Ex hippy whole foods type who is now a rich NIMBY and has a long commute into SF. Kern: Either migrant laborer or meth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
My hometown is in three different counties and two congressional districts, despite being only 4.5 mi^2 and 7k people. County divisions in rural bumfuck nowhere are arbitrary as all hell and really, really stupid sometimes. To add onto that, my house is technically in two different cities too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Marin: Ex hippy whole foods type who is now a rich NIMBY and has a long commute into SF. Can you do the others?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
11 counties in Colorado are voting today on whether to secede and form a new state. These are the rural areas who are mostly mad that they've become irrelevant. The specific issues that broke the back and made them get a ballot referendum for secession are background checks for firearm purchases, same sex civil unions, and a mandate for a minimum of 6% of electricity to come from renewable sources. The counties are not all contiguous, but if they were to form a new state, the contiguous areas would be these:  Population would be 350,000 or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Can you do the others? At least for the northern California coastal counties as you go from Marin -> Sonoma -> Mendincino -> Humboldt -> Del Norte there is a continuum of the rich hippy to poor hippy ratio changing as you go north. Marin is mostly SF rich liberal but when you get up to Humboldt it's a lot of working class fisherman, foresters and marijuana growers with the same sort of crystal power hippy mixed in. As far as I can tell the economy of Del Norte county is entirely from Pelican Bay prison. Edit: Another interesting slice would be going from SF eastward. It's a good measure of the California microclimate system as you go from the Bay area to the heavy agricultural San Joaquin valley into the Sierra foothills like Mariposa county which have a tourism and ranching economy, high country and into the Sierra rain shadow countries like Inyo which are a high desert and ranching mix. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
fermun posted:11 counties in Colorado are voting today on whether to secede and form a new state. These are the rural areas who are mostly mad that they've become irrelevant. The specific issues that broke the back and made them get a ballot referendum for secession are background checks for firearm purchases, same sex civil unions, and a mandate for a minimum of 6% of electricity to come from renewable sources. How much of a chance does this thing have of happening though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Peruser posted:How much of a chance does this thing have of happening though? None because the US Constitution governs the process of creating new states and, at the very least, the state legislature would have to consent to the creation of the new state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
None, it'd need to pass the referendum, it'd then need to get through both houses of the state legislature, then be signed off on by the governor, then the US House, Senate, and President Obama would need to sign off on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
fermun posted:11 counties in Colorado are voting today on whether to secede and form a new state. These are the rural areas who are mostly mad that they've become irrelevant. The specific issues that broke the back and made them get a ballot referendum for secession are background checks for firearm purchases, same sex civil unions, and a mandate for a minimum of 6% of electricity to come from renewable sources. That looks like it would be one of the worst states in the country, based on the counties that are highlighted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
fermun posted:None, it'd need to pass the referendum, it'd then need to get through both houses of the state legislature, then be signed off on by the governor, then the US House, Senate, and President Obama would need to sign off on it. Unless we're in a civil war then it's whatever. (West Virginia)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
What's the population of those counties?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Peanut President posted:Unless we're in a civil war then it's whatever. (West Virginia) Technically they just said they were the rightful government of Virginia and then authorized the secession. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:43
|
|