Literally no use engaging with this. On your post on the Indonesia sub commenters are unironically calling us westoids and calling for people to freeze. Maybe we _should_ just stick our heads in the sand because it’s dammed if you do, damned if you don’t anyway.
Edit: since the author specifically points out western neocolonialism, perhaps we should reflect on Indonesia’s contemporary colonialism in West New Guinea?
>When the results of the government-sponsored study were published in February last year, the research team explained that they deliberately avoided the legal term “war crimes” and used the colonial concept of “extreme violence” instead. They did so to keep “deliberate distance from international-law frameworks”.
Already, then, I wondered whether the researchers, even though claiming to be independent, perhaps had received instructions from above? I got the impression that the avoidance of the term “war crimes” was to prevent Indonesians from using the outcome of the study as proof in court cases against the Dutch state.
Vanaf dit punt was ik er al klaar mee. Het komt op mij over als gezeur van iemand die graag de discussie levend houd, door te beginnen over semantiek, partijdigheid van de onderzoekers en of de Nederlandse overheid sinds de jaren 60-70 dan wel zo anti-koloniaal is als dat gesuggereerd wordt door het onderzoek.
In de comments van de oorspronkelijke post zitten mensen te beweren dat Nederland bewust de feiten verdraaid en wordt er zelfs gezegd dat wij er een anti-moslim verhaal van maken en de link met 9/11 mocht natuurlijk ook niet ontbreken. Moeilijk om dit serieus te nemen
“With their assumption that the Indonesian land once rightfully belonged to the Netherlands, they reveal that at present, colonial thinking is still the leading narrative for Dutch politicians. Apparently, in their eyes a colonial occupation was not illegal.
This also explains why, until this day, the Dutch government refused to legally acknowledge Indonesia’s independence from 1945 onward because then they would have to admit that in 1945-1949 the Netherlands attacked a sovereign nation.”
3 comments
Literally no use engaging with this. On your post on the Indonesia sub commenters are unironically calling us westoids and calling for people to freeze. Maybe we _should_ just stick our heads in the sand because it’s dammed if you do, damned if you don’t anyway.
Edit: since the author specifically points out western neocolonialism, perhaps we should reflect on Indonesia’s contemporary colonialism in West New Guinea?
>When the results of the government-sponsored study were published in February last year, the research team explained that they deliberately avoided the legal term “war crimes” and used the colonial concept of “extreme violence” instead. They did so to keep “deliberate distance from international-law frameworks”.
Already, then, I wondered whether the researchers, even though claiming to be independent, perhaps had received instructions from above? I got the impression that the avoidance of the term “war crimes” was to prevent Indonesians from using the outcome of the study as proof in court cases against the Dutch state.
Vanaf dit punt was ik er al klaar mee. Het komt op mij over als gezeur van iemand die graag de discussie levend houd, door te beginnen over semantiek, partijdigheid van de onderzoekers en of de Nederlandse overheid sinds de jaren 60-70 dan wel zo anti-koloniaal is als dat gesuggereerd wordt door het onderzoek.
In de comments van de oorspronkelijke post zitten mensen te beweren dat Nederland bewust de feiten verdraaid en wordt er zelfs gezegd dat wij er een anti-moslim verhaal van maken en de link met 9/11 mocht natuurlijk ook niet ontbreken. Moeilijk om dit serieus te nemen
“With their assumption that the Indonesian land once rightfully belonged to the Netherlands, they reveal that at present, colonial thinking is still the leading narrative for Dutch politicians. Apparently, in their eyes a colonial occupation was not illegal.
This also explains why, until this day, the Dutch government refused to legally acknowledge Indonesia’s independence from 1945 onward because then they would have to admit that in 1945-1949 the Netherlands attacked a sovereign nation.”
This author has no clue