0 comment Saturday, November 1, 2014 | admin
On this day in 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared their independence from the Netherlands. What's this got to do with America or Americans? Not a great deal, on the face of it, but it does touch on a few issues we discuss here.
I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:
'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''
So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.
I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:
'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.
Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''
There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.
Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.
This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.
But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.
But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.
The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.
And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.
I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:
'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''
So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.
I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:
'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.
Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''
There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.
Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.
This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.
But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.
But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.
The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.
And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.
Labels: Colonialism, Colonies, Diversity, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnic Division, History, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism
0 comment Thursday, October 30, 2014 | admin
Another episode in the 'just one big family' series.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.
According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.
It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'
How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.
I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.
I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.
The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall�s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall�s promiscuous uncle George (I don�t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it�s just an example).
I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?
I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.
In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.
In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.
Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.
As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.
What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.
Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.
Labels: Dna, Genealogy, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism, Nationality, One World, Political Correctness
0 comment Saturday, May 24, 2014 | admin
Manuel Valdes is apparently one of those ''diversity'' writers for the AP, whose job is to present the Latin-American slant on the news. Apparently he covers the Immigration beat or the Latino turf.
You see, Anglo writers cannot present these stories in a ''fair'' fashion, so only Latino people can cover Latino-related stories, and only immigrants or those with recent immigrant roots can write about immigration. And as we are all aware, immigration these days is a Hispanic thing for the most part, so a Hispanic is needed to write these stories. And we know minorities are not capable of any bias or conflict of interest, right?
One of his recent pieces has to do with the reaction of American Indians to the Hispanic influx into Washington State, particularly central Washington, where some towns have large Mexican majorities, towns like Mattawa.
It's interesting, though, to read what some of the people of the Yakama tribe of Washington have to say about the huge presence of illegal Mexican immigrants in their area. They apparently feel resentment towards the illegals who are taking jobs from them (allegedly, of course) and they perceive that gang violence has increased with the large numbers of Mexican immigrants. Allegedly. But then, those are the same things 'alleged' by those ''anti-immigration'' people, so of course the allegations are suspect. Of course.
The Yakama Indian who is interviewed does not, apparently, limit his objections to illegal immigration only, which is to his credit. Obviously Indians need not worry about censoring themselves; I note that he does not feel compelled to tell Mr. Valdes that he has ''many Mexican friends'' or that he ''has nothing against legal immigrants.''
So Mr. Valdes brings in some Mexican voices who express displeasure with the ethnocentric ideas of the local Indians; one woman seems disgusted that Indians have such feelings. Another Latino pronounces the local Indians as no better than the gringo; the implicit attitude that I hear from the immigrants is 'why don't they just accept our takeover, and just fade away into the sunset?'
One of the favorite propaganda memes of the Mexican revanchists is that they are ''the indigenous people of the Americas'' and that they automatically have the same claims to this land as the local Indians in North America. To unwary gringos, they represent themselves as being essentially the same people as the Indians in the United States. I doubt very much that most Indians accept that strange notion; each tribe is quite conscious of their own identity; there is no monolithic ''indigenous'' group in North America, although the presence of Whites has unified the tribes in common anti-White feeling to some extent.
I am not sure if the Mexican reconquista crowd really believed their own propaganda about their being ''the indigenous people'', or if they were merely coached to say that by the leftist globalists and academic useful idiots who manipulate them. I doubt they really believe it; surely they can see that they don't even resemble the other Indian tribes very much, and I doubt that, back home in Mexico, they even wanted to claim Indian ethnicity. Most of the Mexicans I've met look down on Indians, even though most of them have considerable Indian blood. Indians in Mexico are not high up in the social hierarchy. So I think they merely call themselves ''indigenous'' for political reasons in this country, so as to manipulate that old gringo guilt, to play the race card, to give themselves some kind of false legitimacy.
I find this tactic manipulative and dishonest, lacking any sense of honor or integrity. It smacks of cynical opportunism, mixed with a little pathological lying.
I don't know if they aspire to form some kind of anti-White alliance with the Indian tribes in this country, but I think the commonalities are more imagined than real; the article illustrates that there is a gap between the Mexicans and the Indians. I suspect that any alliance between them would be an ad hoc thing, for convenience sake, but there is little love lost there. Just as Mexicans and blacks seem to clash more often than not, I think their relationship with Indians will be uneasy at best.
I wonder how the average multicultist will feel on reading this article? These kinds of disagreements between their 'victim' clients must pose problems. Who do they side with? Who is higher on their victimhood totem pole? The poor immigrants just looking for a better life while being persecuted by Whitey? Or the poor dispossesed, genocided Native American, exiled in his own land?
And while the confused leftist White is tossing a coin to decide which side is more worthy of the top victim slot, I wonder if he will take a thought for his own people, who stand in danger of becoming like the Indian, a stranger in his own land, in danger of being either mixed out of existence, or displaced?
Our Yakama Indian friend mentions that the mass influx of Mexicans is destructive to his tribe in that it has led to considerable mixing, and with that, the loss of the coherence and commonality that makes a tribe what it is. I wonder if the average White people reading the article are able to see the obvious parallel to our own situation? Do they not see that this is what is happening to our people, too?
Meanwhile the 'diversity' journalists and the corrupt old media continue to churn out their stale ''news''; at what point will people begin to notice the rank smell of propaganda that's long past its sell-by date?
Labels: Diversity, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Restrictionists, Mass Immigration, Multiracialism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Racial Division