It would be fun if we jailed him, we could get a nice riot from that :D
Printable View
It would be fun if we jailed him, we could get a nice riot from that :D
Not so sure about that, pretty sure there will be when cleared of all charges though
hmmmm, locking up politicians who diagree with the ruling clique, interesting idea, and i think it has been tried before..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
What do you call the Nuremburg trials then? Genocide left aside, weren't they politicians who disagreed with the ruling clique? Hey, forget about politicians, just being of another race makes you a suspect.Quote:
hmmmm, locking up politicians who diagree with the ruling clique, interesting idea, and i think it has been tried before..........
Are we really comparing this with the nurermberg trial
1. Has he broken a law? If yes then prosecute and jail him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
2. Does he belong to a proscribed political party? If yes then prosecute and jail him.
Your hyperbole doesn't wash, locking up politicans who disagree with the ruling clique is just not cricket!
Yes. I'm discussing the position of politicians who disagree (no matter to what extent this is pursued) with the government in power.Quote:
Are we really comparing this with the nurermberg trial
Yes.Quote:
1. Has he broken a law? If yes then prosecute and jail him.
The far right should be met with debate, not the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
We had theracists"immigrationally challenged" run in the election here last year. The result? About zero votes, and both of the parties are now disbanded as they realized they were idiots.
We have no need to fear the racists in our debates, they should be welcomed in. We have plenty of arguments, they have none. Their only way to grow and become a threat, is by being on the outskirts of society, once we let them in, they die.
They only debate among theirselves, for the right they have newspapers, state-television, schoolbooks, all indoctrination-tools. The mantra is: you don't debate with them, you write about them.
edit: oh and :daisy: crazy knowologues.
History in school is indoctrination, however you look at it, it starts with the deification of Athenian 'democracy' and ends with the flaming of fundamentalist (at least in my school books)
Heavily biased, especially in the Netherlands.
Other ideologies than the current one is wrong and extremist, according to school.
So yes, fragony has a point there.
Glad we agree on something. Seen it all before.
And Louis you don't have a well enough understanding of Dutch society to place this indo-thingie in the proper context, it's sneaky, by suggesting these silly things like indo-heritage or sexual frustration you make one come across as damaged goods, if you strayed from the true path you must be mad, and there is no real reason to not agree with them. The worst part is that some people fall for it. It starts with the question 'where does his irrelevant hate come from'? Well it kinda starts all wrong all there because you will always end up wrapping everything around the assumption that it is irrational hate, I don't go in discussion from such a starting point and neither will mr Wilders. Cheap tactics to avoid any real discussion.
And Wilders isn't all that extreme in the first place, nothing like the BNP or FNP, there is a reason he doesn't want to be associated with these guys, that reason being not being quite the same thing. There is a reason he is popular among moderate muslims, mostly Turks. They don't want to be associated with the more hardcore stuff.
did they prosecute and jail him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
if yes, has he served his sentence and now free?
is he breaking the law right now?
We're kinda working on it right now.Quote:
did they prosecute and jail him?
Oh you see that wrong, they are working on how they are going to get out of this mess with a straight face. Even the Volkskrant printed a few comments/columns that aren't exactly in favor of this trial, thx for the mess anyhow because what these idiots don't understand is that they will have to defend the islam to prosecute Wilders, and that is going to be hard as he has plenty of ammunition, they have made a huge mistake with this trial.
In the meantime, we'll just lol at Hitl...Wilders while he's being prosecuted.
Have a blast, things didn't quite turn out as they expected, instead of being the hero going against the blond satan they turned out to be the butchers of free speech in public opinion, and Wilders the one man against the machine. Even people who strongly disagree with him are disgusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I can't help thinking. How would people react if it was Nick Griffin?
is that implied guilt by association?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I detest Nick Griffin and the racist ideas he stands for, but freedom of speech is his right, and I will defend it for him as I would defend it for everyone else. That doesn't mean I won't strongly object to what he says, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Still, Wilders is no Griffin.
I apologise, from what I heard, he is basically the Dutch Nick Griffin. Which is why I admittedly, never took any comments in support of him seriously. As you might know, Nick has a long criminal record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
He split with the liberal party because of their stance on Turkey in Europe. I like him because he hates political correctness as much as I do and he isn't shy of a little provocation, but he is no extremist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Here he gets a little heat for a change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMkwH9ODCU
And I agree with him.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I object as much to trials like this as I object to Wilders idiotic ideas. Get the scum out in the open, meet them with words, and they will wither and die. Besides such trials being a massive crime against humanity, they are also counter-productive.
Almost glad you feel that way ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Frag, if he is no criminal, he will not be convicted, why so scared?
My trust in their ability or their, well judgement, took the plane to Turkey and is now running a nightclub in Allanja.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Well, she's wrong, LOL. The Indo people do not have a pied noir complex. If anybody, as said, has such a thing in Holland, it's the Moluccans. Please, read up on the makeup of our society and the identity of our minorities before accepting the conclusions of a single study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
EDIT: Also, I take exception to being accused of "not talking about it" or "denying" it. I simply am of the opinion that this is sidetracking the debate while far more important issues are at hand. I am also of the opinion that this woman's argument is badly structured, ignores anything that doesn't fit into her story and is incongruent and incorrect when it comes to the identity of minorities in Holland. She doesn't even acknowledge the fact that to the vast majority of Dutchmen, Wilders is not an Indo but some dude from the Catholic, Belgianesque south of the country, which is a completely different minority with completely different connotations for the majority.
Ah yeah, that pimp... but I don't think Wilders will take the plane to turkey and wil start a brothel there :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So..... You believe that anyone who breaks the blasphemy laws are criminals, and that they belong in jail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Anyway, if he is convicted, I hope the EHRC will slap the dutch courts. With a proper, principal ruling in that court, maybe we will finally see the end of the blasphemy nonsense.
He's not being charged with blasphemy laws... he's being charged with discriminating against groups based on their beliefs and heritage.
Hmmm. The actual article from the Groene Amsterdammer (Link 1 and link 2) also says something about Frits Bolkenstein, another Dutch politician who served as EU commissionar for the internal market until a couple of years ago.
I think we've seen only the tip of the iceberg here. There's obviously a conspiracy by people of (partial) Indonesian descent to cause antagonism between the Netherlands and muslim countries for their own purposes.Quote:
One of the first well-known politicians who was distinctly critical about the immigration policy was VVD member Frits Bolkenstein, who has an Indian mother (in this context this means "from the Dutch Indies"- Kralizec). He caught attention because in his day he was the only EU-commissionar who was fiercely against Turkey's possible accession to the EU. Also, so reports the KRO tv-show Reporter, he sabotaged trade relations with Indonesia while he was state secretary for Foreign Trade, something he was accused of earlier when he was employed by Shell in Indonesia. As an assistant to Bolkestein Wilders wrote many speeches for Bolkestein, wich lead to his entry as MP for the VVD in 1998.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I hope this is sarcastic. I don't see why descendants of immigrants are not allowed to be opponents of excessive immigration.
I thought you were able to recognize sarcasm after enduring my insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
You never know these days. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
As the anthropologist says, we're talking about a politician who is against immigration and has foreign blood. We'll have to rule out coincidence, and look for the explanation of his individual views in the collective history of millions of people. And dying your hair is an obvious sign that the person involved hates his ethnic origins.
Then, we have another politician who's also skeptic of immigration and also has foreign blood. That makes two, further proof that this can't be a coincidence. It's not as if there are hundreds of politicians...
Truth suffers from too much analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
:book:
Wilders= Uncle Tom?
:strawman1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
:strawman1:Quote:
Originally Posted by EMFM
I am happy to learn that by some as of yet unknown mechanism, the Dutch are uniquely in Europe completely free from any post-colonial trauma, revanchism or displacedness.
I am also happy to learn that despite what every anthropologist or political scientist says, there is no Indo community in the Netherlands, these non-existing people have no post-colonial trauma, and unlike each and every other repatriated colonial group in Europe, their integration into the society of the motherland has left not a single scar.
You learn something new every day. In particular, the depths to which taboo and a culture of silence may have a stranglehold on even modern 21st century European societies.
If only Adrian were here, I could rub in how right I was when I said that 'silence' is the Dutch way of dealing with the past. I've hit the same brick wall when stating obvious truths about the Dutch past that are commonly accepted throughout the world, but remain stubbornly denied, or even more worryingly, as is also the case with Wilders' origin here, completely unknown in the Netherlands.
Look, unease about immigration and anti-Islamic sentiment is common throughout Europe, and not less common in countries and cultures that do not have any displaced former colonials in the first place. This is blisteringly obvious, so it should be equally obvious that an exploration of Wilders' origins is not meant as a complete explanation of his thought, nor of that of his followers. To dismiss it as such is a strawman at best, and painful anti-intellectualism at worst.
Meh.
Despite the fact that sociology and anthropology tend to be vague in the extreme, I accept that it can be useful in explaining certain trends and forms of behaviour in large groups of people.
I do not accept that you can use either to draw meaningful conclusions about Wilder's personal motivations, or about his reasons to dye his hair.
:juggle2:
I have to be honest, wasn't too impressed by the video Fragony posted. A bunch of his comments, would be the same as me showing clips of fundamentalist christians in America then me exposing "the evils of the christian religion". The news host actually makes some very good counter-arguments to him. Geert Wilders just picked up the clips from the radicals and just showed them as the mainstream opinion which was pretty dirty trick, as I said, i could do it identical using groups of fundamentalist christians from views such as bombing the Dome of the Rock, to rebuild the Temple of Solomon and other extremist viewpoints.
It isn't all that impressive, comes down to that there is no place for radicals here. In 4 years his opponents will say that as well. That is how it always go, they scream bloody murder and bring in the guns, and 4 years later they have an eureka-moment and invent the wheel all by themselves.
But there are extremist christians as well. ther are also a great many number of muslims which don't scream hate, shop at the disney store, females that don't wear burkas, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I am even friends with a few of them. Painting all muslims as rabid animals is pretty dirty to do, as what you argue is the "left" is trying to say that this minority isn't an excuse to discriminate against all muslims and arabs.
So do I (yy bring it on), and Wilders doesn't do that, we are talking about different things, he clearly makes the distinction between the Islam and individual muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yet there is two big branches of Islam (Shi'ite and Sunni), and on-top of that, the belief of Western Muslims, which do things like drink alcohol, the females not wearing burkas and other various things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The newsreader actually makes some good counterpoints in that video you linked, where Geert Wilders stumbles about trying to counter-them.
I can fully understand there are fundamentalist muslims which want to bomb the world and want to make the world muslim, however, I fully understand that they are a minority and the best way is not to label all muslims as these and discriminate against them. That is a big crucial difference.
Again, he doesn't do that, that's a leftist reflex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Unless he has caused some physical damage, I don't really see the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Hating people shouldn't make you a criminal.
Hating someone doesn't. Actively promoting hatred towards others does. Did Wilders do that? :juggle2:
That is why there is this court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Nah, this case is just the fatal mistake they had to make at some point, this is no trial it's a ritual dance, whatever comes out of it it has already been decided. They didn't expect the commotion, and they certainly didn't expect public opinion would turn against them, even most of Wilders most rapid enemies draw the line just like Horetore does, they find freedom of speech more important then political capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Netherlands is still governed by the rule of law. This is not a political trail, this is a trail with political implications.
Other democracies have laws against defamation too. In this very thread there have been links to similar cases in both the Netherlands and Belgium.
The court case is interesting. It revolves around the issue where defamation of a religion ends, and defamation of a people and incitement to hatred begins.
In a clever move, Wilders bases his defense on the insistence that his statements aren't merely not an incitement to hatred, but are simply true as well. He might force the court in this manner into an outright polical verdict - which is what he seeks.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
He never asked for this, but can't blame him for making the most out of it. Never stop your enemy if they are making a mistake a famous Frenchman once said. What he did is put the Islam itself on trial, and his prosecutors will now have to defend it, that is a pretty nasty position to be in, Wilders can just take the Quran and they will have to put it into the proper historical context, which is totally unclear as there is still plenty of debate among muslims themselves on how and what, impossible task. They should have seen that coming, Wilders is a very handy politician and a clever bloke, although I suspect he has flown in some spin-doctors from the USA who understand the game a little better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
i don't like incitement-to-hatred laws, but if one is going to have them then a case like this is perfect as it will crystallise the limit of the application of the law insomuch as a statement can be truthful, and yet be perceived as hateful by the affronted party, and where one precept must bow to the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
i will laugh if he is not convicted of inciting hatred
i will laugh if he is not found to have stated untruths
i will cry if he is not found to have stated untruths, but he is still convicted of inciting hatred
I'll let the man speak for himself, not a word of Spanish in it so to say.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f71_1205515340
And that shouldn't be illegal either, IMO. It serves no purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Well that is where I draw the line, that should certainly be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nonsense. Free speech means free speech. I draw the line when something other than talking goes on. Of course, planning violent acts would go under that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But incitement to violence and such should be met with arguments and debate, using the courts is counter-productive, it won't solve anything. Also, these arguments should be encouraged to come out into the public, they only represent a danger when people hide away with their grumbles. That's when violent acts can happen.
When they are brought into the public light, they will be ridiculed and shunned, which is what we want.
What is there to discus, nothing if you ask me. Freedom of speech is protection from the government not a permission to say what you want about anybody, there is a difference. Wilders never crossed that line, nor did his voters. Is there any incident we caused? Did we beat somebody up? Treat anybody badly? Anything at all, most of all anything that is bad. Hate is not an opinion so it has no place in politics, they can have it at their local bar, or tea-house.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Guy's right. I hope this nonsense trial will put an end to the pathetic little self censorship imposed on anything that somehow looks like a criticism of islam.
And that's coming from a leftist.
I love how everyone keeps using this image. I'm really glad you like it, Frag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Also have our president for....... I dunno
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ezoenobama.jpg
Everything can be discussed! You should know that after these years in the backroom, Frags... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But I don't think you understood what I meant.... For example, let's say you have an old Nazi somewhere. He himself won't be a physical threat to anyone, the threat lies in his ability to recruit others. However, he will only be able to convince others if he isn't met with any resistance, any reasonably read man will tear his logic apart, so it'll only work in private. If his arguments are brought before us all in public, he will of course be ridiculed and shunned, and he won't be able to recruit people...
Like what happened to the norwegian nazi's when they ran for election last year; they got some 5 votes and are now all disbanded.
You are making the mistake of arguing from what you consider to be an already established position, it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, I'm arguing on a general basis, unrelated to Wilders...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Let me ask you a simple question: do you know any Indo's? No? I do. None of them froth at the mouth when the subject of Muslims comes up. In fact, some of our best mutual friends are Muslims. Moluccans, perhaps, are a different matter, but even they usually aren't raging PVV-voting Islam haters. That is, perhaps, only a small and bitter element of the Moluccan minority -- and even then that segment of Moluccans is probably a lot more bitter at the Dutch majority and the Dutch state for lying to them, not delivering on their promises and putting them in concentration camps.
But you probably don't know what Moluccans are, or do you? And you don't know what I mean when I say the Dutch state lied to them, do you? 'Cause you aren't exactly showing much knowledge of our society and our (colonial) history in this thread. In fact, because of your posts, I'm having a hard time not flying into a screaming rage about overbearing, know-it-all Frenchmen.
If anybody in this country has a problem with bitterness and nationalism (and there is), it's the ethnic Dutch majority, primarily those concentrated on the countryside and in well-off neighborhoods bordering crappy immigrant boroughs (the main PVV constituency). And that's what many people do not know or wish to admit.
In a way you do prove one of his points though, cause he isn't the only one who has a rather poor knowledge of our colonial history. We are much more guilty of ignorance, Louis probably knows more about it then the average Dutchman, probably just by even knowing something happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
That would be a rather twisted and malformed bit of proof, then.
It it's a rather twisted and malformed sentiment to rule it out altogether, Louis didn't just make our colonial history up. He is wrong, but he isn't stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I think laws against incitement of hatred are ridiculous (seeing as how "hating someone" itself is not a crime) but incitement against violence should be very illegal and punished accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ask yourself this: A hires a bunch of thugs to beat up minorities. B encourages his followers to beat up minorities. Wich of them should be punished? Both?
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
A few years back I had a job/internship in Assen, where there's a sizable Mollucan community. One morning I arrived on the trainstation and came across dozens of cops and ME personel (=riot cops) on the way to work. Wich is not usually the case in Assen.
Turns out, that day was an anniversery of something (the 30th of the train crisis near De Punt I think, but I'm not sure) and the police, for some reason, feared there'd be riots.
As far as I know nothing serious happened that day, though.
He's making stuff up if he's claiming there's a widespread pied-noir sentiment that Geert Wilders supposedly draws from amongst our Indo minority which simply is not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
A) Moluccans are not relevant.
B) Of course I know what Moluccans are. 'Louis VI' is only a forum name. We, 'Louis', are a group of experts with knowledge encompassing everything under the sun. :stare:
Moluccans are 'Harkis', Indos are 'Pieds-noirs'. The former are indigenous peoples. The latter are colonists, sometimes of mixed race. Predominantly mixed in the case of Indo, mostly European in the case of the Pieds-noirs,unless one considers the Mezzogiorno to be Africa and
Each group has its own history, and lingering sensitivities.
Harkis/Moluccans are indigenous people who sided with the colonisers.
After the independence war was lost, the Harkis/Moluccans could no longer remain in the colony, which didn't want them anymore and where they were not safe. For having served militarily for the cause of the motherland, they were shipped to Europe. There they were unwelcome too, for being indiginous peoples, non-Europeans. This, and the sense of betrayal by the motherland for whom they fought harder than the motherland fought for them, caused a lot of resentment, which lingers on to this day.
See? It is not hard at all to understand Moluccans.
Nor Indos. The Dutch claim to uniqueness does not hold up. The difference between the Netherlands and the rest of Europe is not the past itself, but a willingness to deal with this past. Ireland has suffered from too much historical awareness. Poland suffers from too much historical navelgazing. The Netherlands, for its part, deals with its past by silence. :quiet:
On the upside, silence is an excellent means of forgetting, persist in it for long enough and history vanishes indeed.
The Dutch, both the Europeans and those repatriated from Indonesia, have chosen to forget. But this is difficult for the repatriated. People tend to ask themselves questions, to wonder where they came from. They see old family pictures. The family home in that other land. They remember with bitter fondness the colony - which was their natural home, where they had lived for as long as Europeans have lived in the US.
There is the trauma of the motherland - cold, unhospitable and alien. In both people and climate. There is the cold shoulder from their 'European' neighbours. The allegations levelled at them of colonialism, of exploitation. The lost family belongings, sometimes even wealth.
The climate, the food, the family home - none of which were ever experienced again for most. There was never full acceptance in the motherland, the displaced colonial remains more foreign in the motherland than in the homeland from which history had driven him away. So foreign, so cold, that many moved on, emigrated to a new future altogether -America, Canada, Australia
Ask your Indo friends. Ask your friends' parents, grandparents. Yes, dig deep enough and you will find the traumas, they will be there.
Displaced peoples, diaspora, forced relocation - it is nothing new. These are intensely studied fields of 20th century history. Just why the Pieds-noirs in France are a bulwark of the FN, why the Vertriebene in Germany are far more to the right than the German population at large, or why the Indos of the Netherlands tend towards the hardright must remain a subject for another post. I shall gladly oblige should people be at all interested in discussing this.
I have given you Van Leeuwen. Herself an Indo. An antropologist, and a polical scientist. She states that the Indo community historically had a very large number of fascists back in the colony, have strong anti-immigration feelings in the motherland, widely share anti-Islamic sentiment ('the Muslims drove us out of Indonesia'), and have a very large support for Wilders, who is one of their own*.Quote:
He's making stuff up if he's claiming there's a widespread pied-noir sentiment that Geert Wilders supposedly draws from amongst our Indo minority which simply is not there.
You have given me 'some of my Indo-friends' best friends are Muslim'....
:sweatdrop:
I would be interested in numbers of political parties this demography voted for, is a member of. A study, a link, which shows Van Leeuwen is wrong in her assertment of the political preference of many Indos. :study:
*Kralizec just taught us that not only Wilders, but his political mentor as well is Indo. Kralizec uses this to relegate into the bin the claim that Wilders personal background is relevant. Me, it bolsters me in the belief that one should not a priori exclude the possibility that Wilders background is not entirely irrelevant for a deeper understanding of this man.
That would be planning to commit violence, wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
'The Netherlands for the Dutch! Stop the immigration! Western culture is superior, Islam inferior! Mass deportations of Muslims! A million to be expelled!'
Oh, and the bleached blond hair is entirely irrelevant when all the above is monomanically shouted by a person of mixed race immigrant ancestry himself. This man suffers in no way whatsoever from any identity complex whatsoever.
I wonder - who is mad here? Louis? Or taboos in the Netherlands?
'Okay, but even if you are right, Louis - and I am certainly not convinced you are - why should it be at all relevant?'
That is a good question. Me, I'd say that this man may soon be the leader of the largest Dutch party. A party without any history and which consist of...this man alone.
So this man's personality is important. There is no difference between party and person. Nor between person and party - Wilders self-identifies with his 'mission'.
And if this man does have issues, he may actually make good on his promises. He may actually be the fanatical maniac he appears to be. His quotes may not be mere provocations. He may actually mean what he says. And act on it....
You just don't get it, do you? You persist in your belief that you actually know and understand Dutch society and its complexities, as well as modern Dutch history and its complexities, when your entire argument is based on one single study which came as a surprise to the vast majority of Dutchmen, and which, moreover, is the only one of its kind. Unlike in France, there is no air of bitterness or well-known problem between the Indo minority and the ethnic Dutch majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
On that note, let me lay bare the crux of my problem with whatever you're arguing here. You see, you don't live here. You don't know this society. You live in France, you know that country from the inside, but you don't know the Netherlands. Again, your entire argument is based wholly on one single isolated study with a clear political bias. Nobody in this country will "get it" if you cite a pied-noir complex when it comes to the Indo's. That is because such a supposed trauma does not exist. Nobody hears "Geert Wilders is half-Indo" and thinks "oh, so that's why he says the things he says!"
Of course, to counter such a fact, you maintain that Dutch society "ignores" such a phenomenon. What do you base that on, friend? Nothing, except Van Leeuwen. Nothing is weaker than an argument based on a single source.
You ask me for sources? I'd rather point to the lack of ones. It is simply not an issue here. Van Leeuwen is alone in claiming these things. Every Indo I've spoken to about the matter (and this is not the first time) tells me that she makes wild conclusions grasped out of nowhere. Here, even this rather mild, if not overtly friendly piece already shows you, in the second to last paragraph, that her conclusions are anything but broadly accepted in the Indo community. I might add that Indo's I know have rejected her claims about being put in the same category with Moroccans and Turks in the '60s and '70s, as well.
Besides Van Leeuwen as your (only) source, you cite some general belief that what flows out of colonial (and even non-colonial) European history is all essentially the same. You're arguing with a history student here, bud, and nothing is as untrue as claiming that the history of different societies is essentially entirely the same. Similar in pattern, perhaps, but not an exact parallel in the least. France is not the Netherlands, or Germany for that matter.
My Indo friends I cited because I actually know a bunch of Indo people and have experience with the Indo community. You do not. All you have -- again -- is a single, isolated source. The Moluccans I cited because they are the only group in this country to have any bitterness associated with our colonial history. And again, this has been and is in the vast majority of cases not aimed at Muslims, but at the Dutch government. Again, your argument does not match with reality. It only works, apparently, when in France.
So why do you persist, even though you base yourself entirely on someone who is more or less the only person in this country to make these claims (at least, in the public debate)? Every single Dutchman present has told you that the issue you percieve is news to them. I challenge you to find any other source than Van Leeuwen on the subject.
In summary, your argument is weak and totters on the argument made by one source which does not find itself in a known scholarly debate on the subject of Indo identity. In other words, friend, the Indo community here does not have a pied-noir complex. And this is not because we shove it all into a dark corner and try and forget about it. You only pulled that out of thin air because it's what's keeping your argument alive.
The thing is, we don't even disagree on the fact that Wilders is a detestable little cretin who hates Islam for no proper reason whtsoever and that he's best off not having any power anywhere. It's just that you completely misplace the origin of this sentiment of his, which is much better placed amongst the ethnic Dutch majority which forms 80% of Holland and at which Wilders's populism is aimed.
Quote:
I challenge you to find any other source than Van Leeuwen on the subject.
I'm the daughter of a Dutch 'pied-noir'. My mother (her family lived for generations in the Dutch- Indies) escaped Indonesia when it became independent after a bloody war in 1949. The story is incredibly similar: the 'cold welcome' after 'repatriation', discrimination, the diaspora, social inferiority, accusations of colonialism. The Dutch pieds-noirs are called Indos. Same place in colonial society as pieds-noir.
Except that the majority of the Dutch pieds-noir were/are of mixed-blood descent. That made them the more visible in Holland.
I am interested in comparative history because the huge and growing extremist anti-Muslem movement in Holland is led by an Indo. Some Indos feel that 'the Muslims' kicked them out of their country.
I wonder if there are indeed millions of us in Europe, postcolonial children
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/fra...BEA5B4B205A/p2
I am a Canadian Citizen, and I have held that honour since I was eight years old. As a soldier, I have raised arms to defend Canada, and suffered injury in her service. However, I am still required to provide a list of documents that prove my right to live here, just to get a drivers licence. In this land of ice and snow, I am not white enough to be considered white but still dark enough to be asked where I come from or what my back ground is. I have come to realize that I will never be completely in the “Canadian club”. The reason for that is that I just don’t fit. The only other INDO’s I know, are my two sisters.http://dutcheastindies.web.id/my-heritage-is-my-right
I think that part of this INDO identity issue has its roots in learned behaviour. Over the last generation or two, starting with Dutch Colonial rule, Japanese Occupation, The Bersiap Period and assimilation into different cultures, has made the concept of “eyes open and mouth shut” the rules instead of the exception.
The time for silence is over.
Quote:
And this is not because we shove it all into a dark corner and try and forget about it. You only pulled that out of thin air because it's what's keeping your argument alive.
In a letter published in NRC Handelsblad last week, 22 prominent writers, historians and lawyers asked the Dutch government to finally recognise the proclamation in 1945 was a legitimate act. "The Indonesian people themselves decided on their independence," they wrote.http://www.nrc.nl/international/arti...dependence_day
The Dutch foreign ministry, however, immediately responded by saying the independence only became official after sovereignty was handed over. "The actual transfer of sovereignty took place on December 27, 1949 (...). This is an established historical fact that can not be changed 60 years later," a statement issued by the ministry read.
Not only do the authors of the letter want the Dutch government to retroactively recognise Indonesia’s independence, they say it needs to render account of its armed and political actions between 1945 and 1949. "The lack of full political recognition by the Netherlands is a historic failure we consider unjust towards the people of Indonesia."
Between 1946 and 1949 two military campaigns, euphemistically called `police actions', resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Indonesians and, according to one Financial Times Service report, 6,000 Dutch soldiers. However, the colonial power found itself politically isolated as well as economically near bankruptcy, and independence was reluctantly conceded in December 1949; a fact that even today causes controversy.http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5000418748
The period 1945-49 in Dutch colonial history, however, is still highly sensitive. Indeed, this chapter is conspicuous among colonial studies by its absence. Unlike Vietnam, which Hollywood has transformed into an icon of contemporary culture, post-Second World War Indonesia constitutes something of a collective blind-spot in the Dutch psyche. The case of one of the Netherlands' leading historians, the late Jan Romein, is enlightening. His wife, Annie Romein-Verschoor, had grown up in colonial Dutch East Indies. They were both self-confessed Communists. progressive idealists and committed to Indonesian independence. Yet when Jan Romein published his major study of decolonisation, De Eeuw van Azie (The Asian Century) in 1956, Indonesia earned only a superficial mention. Of the 300 pages, twenty-five were on Indonesia, while the bibliography of 267 titles contained only ten relating to it. In 1980 a leading Indonesian historian, Taufik Abdullah, referring to the loud Dutch silence, remarked that international historiography was the monopoly of the conquerors.
:yes:Quote:
You ask me for sources?
Wilders is best kept out of power. (Unless to 'defuse' him by giving him actual responsibilities). Wilders is a fanatic - 'somebody who won't shut up and won't change the subject'.Quote:
The thing is, we don't even disagree on the fact that Wilders is a detestable little cretin who hates Islam for no proper reason whtsoever and that he's best off not having any power anywhere. It's just that you completely misplace the origin of this sentiment of his, which is much better placed amongst the ethnic Dutch majority which forms 80% of Holland and at which Wilders's populism is aimed.
I do not necessarily disagree with Wilders' take on Islam. Which I consider a backward, totalitarian ideology, and of which I wish there was none of in Europe.
I do think there must be a limit to what one says about Muslims. It is simply not true that they are possesed fundamentalist zombies. There are too many hardworking, kind, civilized Muslims /people from Muslim background.
I do not trace all of Wilders' political ideas, or his meteoric rise, on his personal background alone. Norway has no colonial past (disregarding giving local polar bears a fright), yet it has a vast anti-immigration, anti-Islamic sentiment.
In fairness, Wilders does not disagree with that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Did you really need to drag the Dutch Master into this mess? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
So far, our respective duelists are keeping within the bounds and targeting the opinions and not the poster. THANKS! I hope and trust this will continue.
“Unlike in France, there is no air of bitterness or well-known problem between the Indo minority and the ethnic Dutch majority.”
Wasn’t it a Moluccan Commando that took a train in hostage some 35 years ago (1977, and the storming an Embassy), for unresolved problems?
You are right. I do not rememnber Harkis commando attacking French trains.
Even if they had good resons to do so.
Hoops, sorry, all is for the better in Holland...
They were promised a homeland if the fought at our side, but they were betrayed by the crown, deported and put in camps. It isn't really something we want to forget, it is something aren't supposed to know, the queen will never allow it to enter the schoolbooks we need to keep waving flags at queens-day.
'somebody who won't shut up and won't change the subject'
Not his fault that is the only thing they want to talk about.
@Louis ;)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ah, Harry 'antifada now' van Bommel (socialist party) and Gretta '6 million autographs' Duisenberg (labour party member) are not prosecuted, that puts the prosecution in an even more dire position. Saying that the radical Islam has no place in Europe isn't the same thing as leading a procession with muslims and leftists shouting 'Hamas Hamas all jews on the gas'.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...meldam4777.jpg
You accuse me of having a weak argument because I cite my Indo friends and yet you're citing random people on the Internet now? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Basically that's "my Indo's" against "your Indo's". Who'll win? I asked you for scholarly sources. Van Leeuwen is completely alone in her assertion that Wilders draws from a pied-noir sentiment amonst the Indo community. That doesn't mean she's a pioneer, it means she's just plain wrong.
Tell me Louis... what exactly does the fact that the Dutch government did not recognize the self-declared date of independence of Indonesia (1945) in favor of its own version (1949, when we admitted we had lost) for decades have to do with the subject at hand? The same goes for the fact that the extremely bloody nature of our attempt to reconquer our colony, as well as the war crimes we committed while doing so, remain largely unknown and untaught amongst the broader populace.Quote:
Because the subject at hand was the supposed denial of the existence of a pied-noir sentiment in our Indo community. What you linked to has to do with Indonesia, yes. But the relation stops there. It's about the grudges and the traumas of Indonesians, not of Indo's. Please, stay on topic, will you?
Unless you were trying to say that we keep quiet about certain parts of our history as a society as a general point. I'm inclined to agree with you on that. But then, what country doesn't? I can easily think up a couple examples in France, Germany, and the UK. And the U.S., too, for that matter. Even neutral happy hippie weeniestans like Sweden or Finland!
And when it comes down to it, we're ignoring parts of our history that have little to do with what you assert exists in this country. Holland prefers to ignore its violence in dealing with its colony. It does not ignore a pied-noir complex in one of its communities, which simply does not exist, and for which you have no sources but two random Internet people, one of which is not even from the Netherlands. Meanwhile, every Dutchman is telling you that what you're saying is total news to them and Van Leeuwen is the only person screaming about Wilders being a pied-noir in clogs. I think that says it all, really.
P.S.
Read on:Quote:
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Quote:
Latent racism
But within the East Indies community itself, not everyone agrees. Herman Bussemaker, chairman of the Dutch Indies Platform, says he doesn't know anyone who believes Mr Wilders is a hero. On the contrary, many immigrants from the former colony are alarmed by the politician's meteoric rise.
"They are afraid because the latent racism that is present in Dutch culture is only being reinforced by the actions of Mr Wilders. And most of them aren't white. So they are afraid that his actions will lead to more discrimination towards them as well."
That there is a trauma still waiting to be addressed after all this time - a trauma forgotten or ignored by most Dutch people - Dr Bussemaker doesn't deny. But that hasn't resulted in any strong right-wing leanings, he says. Rather, the political expressions of those frustrations "are spread from left to right".
Protip: Moluccans =/= Indo's. You are referring to a different minority with a different identity and a different history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus