David Hannay in an admiring reference to the Dutch novelist Couperus's De Stille Kracht calls this book 'a convincing study of that "hidden force" of the East which permeates and disintegrates the European, who cannot, or will not, stand apart from and above the races which, be their natural merits what they may, can never combine with his but only poison and corrupt.'[f.n.] This definition and defense of apartheid, made long before its official application in South Africa, reflects a school of thought which can be traced back to the pioneer days of European settlement in the tropics, but which seems to have been stronger among the Dutch and the English than among their Portuguese and Spanish.
It is well worth a read. "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
Perhaps most consequentially, the argument restricts your options "to make the world better". You leave yourself only a radical measure: uncompromising rejection of a phenomenon, ethical imperative by a decree. That may work with some issues, or at a proper time - like it happened with the abolishment of slavery in the US. But radical "good intentions" go awry often, right?
History and "empirically" realistic possibilities of a given culture should not be ignored. People change their behaviour most easily by following an example. When you say "any colonialism or violence is the same", you compell to ignore any differentiation of behaviours, so people are free to ignore mounting evils of most "effective" examples. Evils like violence and greed evolve, and these evolutions thrive on attitudes like "there is no difference". Why obstruct opposing evolution of more "humane" colonizations, etc?
As I said, forcing a radical imperative is possible at a right time. But to keep best opportunities to make that time and not spoil it, it is wise to appreciate and keep best examples of already available (or previously known) "decent" colonizations or whatever.
The attitude of "no shades" often implies "the worst" human nature or prior history, by effectively ignores whatever was nice or decent in other cultures. Ironically, this is kind of colonist attitude towards the past - "people are typically barbarians, etc". Seeing more shades might help to see more positive perspective of humanity (even if it is uncomfortable to "most civilized"), and inspire ideas that have more chance to be accepted smoothly.
BTW:
Q: Is Minke's nemesis, the sinister Robert Surhoff, based on a real person? A: I got him from a newspaper article about a Eurasian gang the Dutch had organized to terrorize the people of Jakarta. The Dutch devised a racial classification system similar to the American and South African apartheid scheme. "Indo" was the name for offspring of Dutch and Javanese. The Indos were born into a complex psychological problem, and Surhoff symbolizes the psychological and social confusion felt by many of this ancestry. He felt he was a true Dutchman, but the Dutch did not see him as such, and he thinks of the natives as dirty and low. This causes him to take extreme measures in expressing his racism.
http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/MT/99/Sum99/mt9j99.html
That said, there still remains the issue of Neo-colonialism. I don't want to get into a whole discussion about that here (perhaps on another occasion).
Actually, to address the issue as to whether there may exist cases of benign or even beneficial colonialism (or perhaps "neocolonialism" is the better term), my "country" - Puerto Rico is arguably such an example. Puerto Rico's colonization by the United States, following the "Spanish American War", evolved into something that can only be categorized as sui generis because of certain historical actors and leaders that seized the historical moment afforded by US President Roosevelt's New Deal policies to (eventually) launch Operation Bootstrap. In short, it was an experiment with "socialist" overtones that succeeded to some degree in lifting the island out of dire poverty. However, such a case can almost certainly not be reproduced today [under current (US) circumstances, anyway]. "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
Somehow contrasting groups of hundreds of millions has not turned out to be the (imho) most productive thing we have done around here. Amazing. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
This definition and defense of apartheid, made long before its official application in South Africa, reflects a school of thought which can be traced back to the pioneer days of European settlement in the tropics, but which seems to have been stronger among the Dutch and the English than among their Portuguese and Spanish.
Even if consequences are clearly evil, we should not see just a vile motivation or rationalization. Much evil happens of ignorant application of not just "good intentions" but of simplest instincts or emotions. In particular, the apartheid phenomenon has some sure basis in anxiety with a completely other culture. The differentiation between English/Dutch and Spanish/Portugese colonizers confirms that: Nordic people have more discomfort feelings in unfamiliar surroundings. Say, Noorse Vikings could not establish relations with local tribes in North America and Greenland at all. The Dutch are more reserved than Spanish and Portugese - this may explain their less aggressive behaviour in Indonesia and most other colonies; the "apartheid" worked out relatively benignly there. But it progressed in the vile direction in South Africa.
The anxiety feelings of colonists were obvioulsy rationalized wrongly way too often. But this is more a problem of ignorance than vile ethics. I would still argue that the Dutch demonstrated less greed and unconcerned exploitation than "the norm". I am also glad for Portuguese and Spanish if they succeeded in more smooth communication and integration with the locals than others - you can learn something from any positive side. We can't ignore evil sides of "civilisation" we had, but willful rejection of the best that accured is not good either.
Do you even know that there was a war in Indonesia in 1945-46 between the Dutch and the Indonesian forces that beat back the Japanese?
The Indonesian forces did not beat back the Japanese. There was large-scale cooperation/collaboration (depending on one's viewpoint) between the different fractions of Indonesian nationalism and the Japanese. I don't blame the Indonesians, they were second-class citizens in their onwn country and the Japanese slogan "Asia for the Asians" would make a lot of sense to them.
I am also glad for Portuguese and Spanish if they succeeded in more smooth communication and integration with the locals than others - you can learn something from any positive side.
The passage I cited was not characteristic. The author then goes on to say why you can poke holes through this characterization. Sorry! That is why I urged people to read the entire chapter.
In academic circles here in the Caribbean (as well - I'm sure - as elsewhere in the "colonized" world) we have been arguing these things over and over again without end with regard to slavery. Was there really a difference between French slavery versus British slavery versus Spanish slavery? The emerging consensus is that slavery is evil no matter who implemented it. If you want, you can call ours "the view from the south". I have no problem with that just as long as you recognize that we are entitled to call it what we want, being the victims.
Furthermore, we are entitled to criticize the Northern or Eurocentric view, if you want, of slavery. I for one can say that I am utterly disgusted by those two intellectuals (Robert William Fogel & Stanley Engerman); the former that won the 1993 Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for supposedly demonstrating the economic benefits of slavery for the enslaved in that book Time on the Cross. I am loath to call myself an economist after I read that piece of shit. "Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
