On 20-12-2010 21:55, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

>> Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party where everyone brings his
>> own food and drinks
>
> Oh. For a second there I thought you meant a Dutch political party. Heh.
>
Dutch political parties are not well funded so it may be advisable to 
take some food and drink with you if you go to a meeting of a political 
party.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
>> country. Interesting.)
>
> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)

I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 10:27 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
>>> country. Interesting.)
>>
>> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)
>
> I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.
>
>

Pardon me for contradicting you, but the Dutch are famous for being 

history. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 23:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 10:27 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in
>>>> another
>>>> country. Interesting.)
>>>
>>> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)
>>
>> I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.
>>
>>
>
> Pardon me for contradicting you, but the Dutch are famous for being


That too. I try to live up to that here in this group.

> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
> history. ;-)
>

I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a 
Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to 
explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the 
English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of 
the 20th century 'were there any?'.
In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature, 
I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside 
my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in 
England, I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two 
centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.

In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than 
we do. I know other countries are also in the process of loosing 
historical knowledge in the young generation. Yet I think are still 
better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it. 
(Or have we?)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.

I think you just proved your point. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
> >> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
> >> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
> >> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
> >> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
> >> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
> >> he does.
> >> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
> >> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
> >> speech.
> >
> >    Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

> I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I 
> would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)

  I was referring to your *assertion* that he was "trying to provoke
violence" etc, as if it was a given and something clear to everybody, in
the same vein as if someone had broken a window with twenty eyewitnesses
and five security cameras clearly testifying about it without any possible
doubt. It sounded like you were saying "he did that, and the only remaining
question is if he should be punished and how much".

  There are many other reasons why someone would publish a critique of
a phenomenon (regardless of whether that critique is accurate or not, or
whether it's presented in a misleading way or not, either intentionally
or not). Outright claiming "it was made to provoke violence" is prejudice.

> In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more 
> criticism than a minority.

  That's an interesting assertion, and something I don't necessarily fully
agree with. The main reason why I don't fully agree with it is because it
is contradictory with the basic tenet of equal rights: Everybody should have
the same rights and duties regardless of background, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and so on. Everybody should be judged equally before the law.
This is one of the fundamental principles of human rights and constitutional
freedom and equality.

  A country which claims in its constitution (or otherwise) that everybody
is equal before the law, but at the same time applies law differently on
different groups of people based eg. on background, has a double standard.

  Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
of a "minority" is a double standard and, as said, contradictory with the
fundamental principle of equality.

> If that minority is more vulnerable.

  More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

  Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
standard.

  (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?
There was once an article, I think it was on a major British newspaper
website, that over 50% of the population of the UK belongs to a protected
minority. Ironically this means that less than 50% of the population
belongs to the sector that gets no special protection from the law,
making them effectively a minority themselves.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
>> history. ;-)
>>
>
> I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a
> Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to
> explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the
> English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of
> the 20th century 'were there any?'.

I'm sure that the same goes, here.

> In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature,
> I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside
> my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in
> England,

We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P

> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>

They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we 
know a bit about them.

> In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than
> we do.

That could be that the Brits you have met took the trouble to find out 
about the country they were visiting. I did when I worked for Philips in 
Eindhoven and did the same in other countries. The only exception was 
when I was working in Zagreb, I thought it best not to know :-)

> I know other countries are also in the process of loosing
> historical knowledge in the young generation.

True. :-(

> Yet I think are still
> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
> (Or have we?)

Do you?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 11:07, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
>>>> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
>>>> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
>>>> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
>>>> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
>>>> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
>>>> he does.
>>>> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
>>>> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
>>>> speech.
>>>
>>>     Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.
>
>> I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I
>> would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)
>
>    I was referring to your *assertion* that he was "trying to provoke
> violence" etc, as if it was a given and something clear to everybody, in
> the same vein as if someone had broken a window with twenty eyewitnesses
> and five security cameras clearly testifying about it without any possible
> doubt. It sounded like you were saying "he did that, and the only remaining
> question is if he should be punished and how much".
>
>    There are many other reasons why someone would publish a critique of
> a phenomenon (regardless of whether that critique is accurate or not, or
> whether it's presented in a misleading way or not, either intentionally
> or not). Outright claiming "it was made to provoke violence" is prejudice.

When I read your remark I realized that I did something that I should 
not do in a conversation with you. I deliberately overstated and added 
'just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of speech'. Which was 
intended as a signal that I also don't believe what I wrote in the 
preceding paragraph. From previous experience I should have known that 
you are likely to miss that, so I should not have done that, my 
apologies for that.

To be clear: what I wrote is what some people believe, e.g. the ones 
that wanted to prosecute Wilders. It does not reflect what I think.

>> In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more
>> criticism than a minority.
>
>    That's an interesting assertion, and something I don't necessarily fully
> agree with. The main reason why I don't fully agree with it is because it
> is contradictory with the basic tenet of equal rights: Everybody should have
> the same rights and duties regardless of background, ethnicity, sexual
> orientation, and so on. Everybody should be judged equally before the law.
> This is one of the fundamental principles of human rights and constitutional
> freedom and equality.
>
>    A country which claims in its constitution (or otherwise) that everybody
> is equal before the law, but at the same time applies law differently on
> different groups of people based eg. on background, has a double standard.
>
>    Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> of a "minority" is a double standard and, as said, contradictory with the
> fundamental principle of equality.

I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for 
philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.

>> If that minority is more vulnerable.
>
>    More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.

>    Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
> to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
> minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
> standard.
>
>    (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?

In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
Only if there is no democracy and the ruling class is a minority a 
majority needs protection. A situation that happens in various places in 
this world an in such a context people might refer to the larger group 
as a minority, which would confuse nobody except the nerd.

> There was once an article, I think it was on a major British newspaper
> website, that over 50% of the population of the UK belongs to a protected
> minority. Ironically this means that less than 50% of the population
> belongs to the sector that gets no special protection from the law,
> making them effectively a minority themselves.)

Women as a group have less access to resources than men. That is why 
they are generally considered a 'minority' that might need special 
protection. So even without immigrants and homosexuals, and with no 
other religion than the state religion, male chauvinist pigs are always 
a numerical minority even though they are the sociological majority.

I think you are also assuming that being a minority is a property of a 
person and not of the context.

If you read something like what you refer to from that paper, be 
careful. It might be a convert attempt to justify current discriminatory 
practices.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 14:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
>>> history. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a
>> Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to
>> explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the
>> English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of
>> the 20th century 'were there any?'.
>
> I'm sure that the same goes, here.
>
>> In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature,
>> I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside
>> my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in
>> England,
>
> We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P

Actually it didn't. It started with windmills in the area that I live in ;)

>> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
>> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>>
>
> They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we
> know a bit about them.

See, precisely my point. (only I meant the first one, the founder of our 
dynasty, so it might not be my point. But I do not know which William is 
the one that you probably mean, so I win in the end)

>> In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than
>> we do.
>
> That could be that the Brits you have met took the trouble to find out
> about the country they were visiting. I did when I worked for Philips in
> Eindhoven and did the same in other countries. The only exception was
> when I was working in Zagreb, I thought it best not to know :-)
>
>> I know other countries are also in the process of loosing
>> historical knowledge in the young generation.
>
> True. :-(
>
>> Yet I think are still
>> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
>> (Or have we?)
>
> Do you?

how can I know? I know nothing about what happened in the past. [go back 
to 20/12/2010 23:27 and repeat].

Post a reply to this message

On 21/12/2010 3:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 21-12-2010 14:47, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>

>>
>> We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P
>
> Actually it didn't. It started with windmills in the area that I live in ;)



long before the industrial revolution. And to add insult to injury, the 
fantail which turns the windmill into the wind was invented by an 
Englishman in 1745.

>
>>> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
>>> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>>>
>>
>> They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we
>> know a bit about them.
>
> See, precisely my point. (only I meant the first one, the founder of our
> dynasty, so it might not be my point. But I do not know which William is
> the one that you probably mean, so I win in the end)

I meant William III or King Billy not William the silent. And if you 
know which one I meant then you refute your point hence I win.

>>
>>> Yet I think are still
>>> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
>>> (Or have we?)
>>
>> Do you?
>
> how can I know? I know nothing about what happened in the past. [go back
> to 20/12/2010 23:27 and repeat].
>

I must admit to making an assumption with what you wrote as it did not 

Dutch]  are still better than the others because we have a much longer 


Or you might have meant "we", older people.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message