----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:23 PM Subject: Re: What do you mean Dutch intolerance?
> > First off, a breakdown into "Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, Antilleans, > Dutch" *is* a breakdown of nationalities. > Nationalities in the sense of their citizenship, i.e., not Dutch citizens, or in the sense of country of origin. We tend to call that more ethnic group. So, there are 5th generation Hispanics, for example, who qualify as that group. > Now, it is true that people from those groups often do the bottom of the > barrel work. Entire studies have been made on that, so I am not going to > give all the reasons and solutions here. > > One of the problems is that many in the second and third generation do not > really have their own culture. At school and at work they have to deal with > the Dutch culture, while at home they have to deal with their parents' > culture. They are kind of "drifting between cultures", which can make life > quite difficult for them. Some adjust quite nicely, some do not. The latter > often drop out of school, and several turn to crime. Given their lack of > education, those who do find work end up doing the low-skill low-pay jobs. We are actually _very_ familiar with the assimilation of different ethnic groups with different languages in the United States. For example, my mother didn't speak English until she was about 4-5. We have friends of the family where the mother came as an illegal immigrant about 10-12 years ago, became a citizen under the amnesty program, and the daughter was on the debate team. It often doesn't work that fast and well, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, but people do get assimilated. <gratuitous dig at a list member> Indeed, the only trouble group is second generation Americans who's parents come from India. Especially people who refuse to follow the footsteps of their mother and refuse to go into a serious technical field. They tend to go to no account schools in Boston, and then can't find a real job. They do temporary jobs, sometimes with Russians, and then only get a job in a consulting company instead of a company that actually does something. <end of dig> > We are working on the problem, but it turned out to be quite difficult to > reach them. I fully realize that assimilation is a difficult problem. It must be harder in a country with no history or track record of assimilation. It appears that the problem may be proving a bit more difficult in the Netherlands than it is in the States. But, a track record does help, so that isn't really isn't. But, one thing we have noted, when a group that obviously looks different starts beating out the locals for good jobs or starts to acquire power, there is often resentment. Or, if they stay in low level jobs, resentment can form, and expectations of "its natural for them to be there" form. I'd argue that is human nature. Resentment and general suspicion of anything that is different is the most likely source of the 1000 years or so of anti-Semitism in Europe (which the US imported too of course). Again, I suggest you talk to your friends who are ethnic minorities and ask them about their experiences. I know when we talked to a 2nd generation Asian-American who was at the vet. school at Texas A&M, she talked about the biases she saw there, that she didn't see in California. Yet, the Aggies swear there isn't a prejudice bone in their bodies, they just don't grant minorities special treatment. Indeed, they claim that there was reverse discrimination in favor of minorities. > And what makes you think we put our heads in the sand? We are very aware of > the problem, and we do everything we can to solve it. It is just not an > easy task. Sure, and insisting that you are doing nothing wrong, that the Dutch couldn't possibly have any prejudices doesn't make it any easier. I know we aren't doing our best, that we have prejudices, that we discriminate. Accepting ourselves as flawed helps us address the problem. Yes, I am accusing you of being flawed. But, since I am admitting to flaws in the same breath, I don't really consider it finger pointing. > > > <snip poll of European Youth> > What is the source of that information? I had answered that before in my quick response. I consider that a very negative view of foreigners. Especially, since a lot/most of them are legal citizens or would be citizens under US and Dutch law. If you asked a similar question about immigrants to the US who have green cards and are becoming citizens, or have become citizens, or are 2nd generation Americans, I'm sure that the results wouldn't be so negative. One cultural rule of the US is that a naturalized citizen is just as much a citizen as one who has been in the country for 20 generations. The only limit is that said naturalized citizen cannot be president. But, their kids can. That has been an article of faith for immigrants for about 200 years. It is part of the definition of who America is. > > > >Actually, I was talking about Houston, which is the local big city. The > >fact that you cannot name a single ethnic minority is indicative to me. I > >would have guessed, since ethnic minorities are identifiable, that you could > >have gone through a list in your head and come up with a few. > > This is nonsense, Dan. Sonja did name minorities. You are picking on her > because she used nationality instead of ethnicity. If she had used > ethnicity you would probably have picked on her for not using nationality. > I may not have been clear after snipping my older verbiage. I meant name a national leader who is an ethnic minority. The challenge was to name a key player in the Dutch government who is an ethnic minority. I can name a number of key players that are minorities here in the US. Yes, we have more people, but the number of governmental leaders one can remember shouldn't be a function of the size of the country. > > > >Oh and btw since you claimed that Jewish people have to be afraid in the > > >Netherlands I think it is your turn now to prove it. Or do you retract? > > > >I didn't say they had to be, I said they were. That is a fact, I was told > >it. > > Yes, you mentioned that. One person (*one*) told you that. Again, that > hardly qualifies as evidence. If you take everything one or a few people > say as fact, *everything* is true. The fact that *one* person tells you > Jews are afraid to live here does not make it true. Some people over here > say that "all those foreigners are a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings" but > that does not make it true either. No. But, he said he was and his family was and most of his friends were. That's a fact. Clearly, he speaks for himself accurately, and probably speaks for his family as accurately. Perhaps he overgeneralizes his friends opinions. Zimmy did not come up with the same answer as my friend. Thinking on it, it is probable that the fear factor has been decreasing. I'm guessing that the fear may vary from family to family, and have a lot to do with family losses in the Holocaust and how the family has resolved those losses. > > > >The fact that over half of the Jewish people remaining went to a place where > >a reasonable person would have to conclude that there was a high chance of > >death should indicate something about their feeling of safety. > > Try this one (more plausible than yours, IMO): after the war the state of > Israel was finally founded; it is reasonable to assume that *that fact > alone* was enough reason to move there. After all, the Jews had to wait >for many centuries to get their own country. Well, Israel wasn't founded for about 3 years after VE (Victory Europe) day. During that time, European Jews were struggling to get out of Germany and trying to get into Israel. > For the umteenth time: where is the evidence, Dan? You keep saying that > much of the Jewish population left Europe because they did not feel safe > there, but so far you have failed to provide proof for that claim (other > than what one of your friends told you). > Why else _walk_ to Israel, knowing that there is a good chance you could die on the way. > I could just as well say that it is obvious that the US is a dangerous > place for Jews. After all, 80.1% of Israel's population is Jewish, while >in the US it is only 2% (source: CIA World Factbook 2001). If Jews have a > relative feeling of safety in the US, why have they not moved en masse >from Israel to the US? It is a lot safer than living in Israel... > Well, while the United States has a fairly open immigration policy, it does not admit everyone who asks to come in. As a result, mass immigration to the US in the late '40s was not really a viable option. It still isn't, for what its worth. Americans come and go from Israel, living in one country and then the other, fairly frequently. Plus, by now, Israel is an established country and is home to the people who live there. It takes a lot more to uproot someone from their home than to convince them to move someplace. Indeed, I think there is a mark of pride and defiance involved in staying. > > >And, as Jerone states, there is nothing good to be said in the local press > >about these people? That its all their fault. And, said press are in the > >same countries where they were slaughtered. And, I'm crazy to think that > >there is lingering prejudice against them? > > <sigh> > > Dan, you are putting words in my mouth. Well, if need be I can go back and quote posts and the dates that you wrote things. But, I really don't want to go that direction again. What I am remembering is that you said you have nothing good to say about Israel. When pressed, you stated that you've seen nothing good in the press. Yet, you have plenty of sympathetic things to say in favor of the Palestinians.
