An elaboration to the post "Challenged and Prevailed"
I am honored to have received diverse responses to my previous post, which made me realized that it may need some elaboration. My intention was to shed light on a persistent (favorable view towards) colonialism in NL. The first-hand accounts were presented in the context of a person originating from ID living in NL. In a general sense, it is the same context as a person from the global south living in the global north, where in the past there was a colonial racial domination by the latter over the former in the land of the former, with racial slavery being one of its pronounced characteristics.
The
responses can be grouped into:
1. Anticipative response: it may also
happen to me or my family members (children).
2. Confirmative “me too” response: it
also happened to me (in NL).
3. Out of context “me too” response: it
also happened to me (as a minority) in ID.
4. Suggestive response: no, it never
happened to me, maybe it’s an “integration” thing.
To the
first response, I would say there is a wide spectrum of the Dutch society. Trying
to anticipate it may lead to a prejudice towards members of the society, which
is not good. But, of course, it is always good to know how it could come to you
and in what form, if it ever happens. The (emotional) impact, and the path
towards an outcome, after such a confrontation would then depend on the character of the experiencing
individual. Such an anticipation may trigger a contemplation on the possible
impact/outcome, which is good.
Therefore, also in relation to the second response, it is always good to report any first-hand incidence,
and present it with a sharp formulation while keeping it generic. A Dutch
academic sent me a message in reply to the post: “These are saddening reports
from your brave daughter. Nonetheless, thank you for sharing. Much work to be
done here, too”. The signals sent out by a report will surely propagate across
communities to bring a betterment to the society.
###
As for the
third response, the word homogeneous in
my post deserves an elaboration too. It refers to the context of ID
within ID according to the norms and values normally upheld by all peoples who identify
themselves as ID, where there was no history of colonial racial domination
between them. I am fully aware of interethnic and intergroup tensions that
are still very much perceptible in the ID society nowadays. I have no
intention to deny or nullify it by not mentioning it in the post.
From the
primary to senior high school, I grew up going to a private school that is not
religion-oriented. Compared with today, in my youth time (in the year 70s-80s) the school
choice was rather limited. There was a consensus that a good school was either a
(highly competitive) favorite state school or a private Christian school,
where the latter was significantly more expensive than the former.
The school I
went to is an anomaly. It is private but religion-neutral, but it has a
reputation as a good school. It was founded in the 50s. A remarkable
characteristic of the school is that there is a control on the enrollment. The
ethnic composition of the students is maintained to be roughly 50%-50% between
Indonesian demographic groups of Chinese and native descents.
Across the
road there is a Christian primary school, and further away about 500 meters a
Christian secondary school. Almost all the students of these schools were of Chinese
descent. Our school (in the morning) share the same location with a state
school (in the afternoon). Almost all the students of this state school were of
native descent.
There is also
a policy of variable tuition fees, as such that our school becomes affordable for
a broad middle class of the population. Financial contribution to the school from
parents of prospective students, while it is welcome, does not play an
important role in the selection. Parents are screened and if necessary interviewed for their
background and upbringing of the children.
One may
argue that such an enrollment is a form of discrimination too. This may be true,
because the composition of 50%-50% also implies a sort of binary division into two
categories, where in one category there is only one ethnicity (Chinese) and the other group consists of multiple ethnicities (originating from many islands
of the archipelago).
Nevertheless,
the result is a favorable educational environment in an ethnic and religion
diversity. It has resulted in a friendship and solidarity that last until today.
One may argue that it is just because we share the same past, but I would
rather consider it a priceless legacy of the school. This may also be the
reason that I have always been sensitive to issues concerning interethnic and
intergroup tensions. When confronted by an issue, I would take the effort and
time to try to make a difference within my practical limits (for example, see my new post (a letter to NL government), and after reading it, please try to think of a reason why a school enrollment
should ever be done at such a length just to create a space that is equally
favorable for all).
About ten
years ago, I also became involved in a lively discussion when an intergroup
issue was brought up very simplistically. In such instances, I always tried to
broaden my view, amongst others by reading academic materials like a PhD dissertation to give a foundation for my opinion and to enrich the community
with quality information. Of course, various developments had taken place since
then, sometimes not in a positive direction when the mutual feeling of “being
threatened” was manipulated for political ends. It is very important that we guard ourselves against disinformation in order not to get consumed by such manipulation.
###
I find the
terminology minority/majority is problematic. In my opinion it is an attributive
multi-parameter metric, which is a function of social, political, financial, knowledge, technology and occupational parameters along with personal (inherited) attributes such as race, religion, sex and origin.
A perceived
weakness of one’s attribute can be compensated by his/her strength in the parameters. This
is entirely justifiable or even recommendable, nothing is wrong about it. However, in many instances, greed kicks in, collusion emerges, poisonous narratives arise which can manifest themselves in discrimination, harassment,
exclusion, exploitation et cetera between community members of different attributes. In the past, the Dutch attributes in ID were a minority in terms of population, but these were compensated by strong parameters. When greed kicked in, an abusive colonial power emerged.
So, I find the
terminology particularly problematic when it is used merely in terms of
population (number of persons), while population is probably the least relevant
aspect in the minority versus majority dichotomy. Of course, in democracy, the
ballot is all about votes from the population, but the ballot is really the
last step after all the parameters and attributes have been exploited
during the campaigning process.
We should recognize that there are segments of the society which have a weak starting position altogether in terms of parameters and attributes. These are underprivileged people who are disadvantaged for many reasons. Spiraling lacks of inspiration and opportunities are typical results of such a situation, leaving many potentials of individuals trapped unused for the betterment of the society. When Rootd. was presented to me, I immediately value it as an agent to reserve such a trend, starting with a specific segment of the society.
###
Regarding
the fourth response, I would like to discuss integration as a terminology, although
the word integration was not explicitly mentioned. Integration in the Dutch discourse
is an elusive binary concept, i.e. one should integrate in the other, while the
Dutch society is immensely diverse. The diversity is probably higher than that
of ID, considering the origins of the people who have gathered on the small piece of land on earth to become Dutch. This diversity did not come out
of the blue, but it is a result of historical process in both the near and far
past. How the Dutch acts (acted) in world affairs determines (determined) the future
(present) state of NL.
Integration is all about intergroup/interethnic mutual interaction. Exposures to various cultures will help the process of integration into the diverse Dutch society. In her school time and today's work, my daughter is fortunate to have encountered and known people of many different cultural backgrounds including, of course, the native Dutch ones. She can get along very well with practically everybody. Reporting those first-hand experiences is not complaining about the Dutch society. Apparently, it came out of annoyance about what those people in the “Ivory Towers” were commenting on the situation in the US/NL. Of course, such a reporting hopefully will raise the necessary awareness to promote a sound integration into the diverse Dutch society.
