zaterdag 16 februari 2019

“For America to Live, Europe Must Die"


“For America to Live, Europe Must Die"

Russell Means
The following speech was given by Russell Means in July 1980, before several thousand people who had assembled from all over the world for the Black Hills International Survival Gathering, in the Black Hills of South Dakota. It is Russell Means’s most famous speech.
“The only possible opening for a statement of this kind is that I detest writing. The process itself epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate” thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken. My culture, the Lakota culture, has an oral tradition, so I ordinarily reject writing. It is one of the white world’s ways of destroying the cultures of non-European peoples, the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.
So what you read here is not what I’ve written. It’s what I’ve said and someone else has written down. I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don’t really care whether my words reach whites or not. They have already demonstrated through their history that they cannot hear, cannot see; they can only read (of course, there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule). I’m more concerned with American Indian people, students and others, who have begun to be absorbed into the white world through universities and other institutions. But even then it’s a marginal sort of concern. It’s very possible to grow into a red face with a white mind; and if that’s a person’s individual choice, so be it, but I have no use for them. This is part of the process of cultural genocide being waged by Europeans against American Indian peoples’ today. My concern is with those American Indians who choose to resist this genocide, but who may be confused as to how to proceed.
(You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point, I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin–which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota–or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.–and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.
(There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met “Indio,” from the Italian in dio, meaning “in God.”)
It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized. The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retain. It must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. No European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A master’s degree in “Indian Studies” or in “education” or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.
I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I’m not allowing for false distinctions. I’m not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary, European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I’m referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. I don’t believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the of the European intellectual tradition. It’s really just the same old song.
The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, “revolutionized” physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these “thinkers” took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they “secularized” Christian religion, as the “scholars” like to say–and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!
This is what has come to be termed “efficiency” in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment–that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one–is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why “truth” changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive.
Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology–and that is put in his own terms–he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel’s philosophy in terms of “materialism,” which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel’s work altogether. Again, this is in Marx’ own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx’–and his followers’–links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel and the others.
Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is “proof that the system works” to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But let’s look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate.
The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill,” at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue.
In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are used to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to “developing” a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be “developed” through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open–in the European view–to this sort of insanity.
Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in all this. After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools.
But each new piece of that “progress” ups the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for the industrial machine as an example. Little more than two centuries ago, nearly everyone used wood–a replenishable, natural item–as fuel for the very human needs of cooking and staying warm. Along came the Industrial Revolution and coal became the dominant fuel, as production became the social imperative for Europe. Pollution began to become a problem in the cities, and the earth was ripped open to provide coal whereas wood had always simply been gathered or harvested at no great expense to the environment. Later, oil became the major fuel, as the technology of production was perfected through a series of scientific “revolutions.” Pollution increased dramatically, and nobody yet knows what the environmental costs of pumping all that oil out of the ground will really be in the long run. Now there’s an “energy crisis,” and uranium is becoming the dominant fuel.
Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate which they can show a good profit. That’s their ethic, and maybe they will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it’s the most “efficient” production fuel available. That’s their ethic, and I fail to see where it’s preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of European tradition. It’s the same old song.
There’s a rule of thumb which can be applied here. You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples. This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe’s tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. I defy anyone to point out an example where this is not true.
So now we, as American Indian people, are asked to believe that a “new” European revolutionary doctrine such as Marxism will reverse the negative effects of European history on us. European power relations are to be adjusted once again, and that’s supposed to make things better for all of us. But what does this really mean?
Right now, today, we who live on the Pine Ridge Reservation are living in what white society has designated a “National Sacrifice Area.” What this means is that we have a lot of uranium deposits here, and white culture (not us) needs this uranium as energy production material. The cheapest, most efficient way for industry to extract and deal with the processing of this uranium is to dump the waste by-products right here at the digging sites. Right here where we live. This waste is radioactive and will make the entire region uninhabitable forever. This is considered by the industry, and by the white society that created this industry, to be an “acceptable” price to pay for energy resource development. Along the way they also plan to drain the water table under this part of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the region becomes doubly uninhabitable. The same sort of thing is happening down in the land of the Navajo and Hopi, up in the land of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow, and elsewhere. Thirty percent of the coal in the West and half of the uranium deposits in the United States have been found to lie under reservation land, so there is no way this can be called a minor issue.
We are resisting being turned into a National Sacrifice Area. We are resisting being turned into a national sacrifice people. The costs of this industrial process are not acceptable to us. It is genocide to dig uranium here and drain the water table–no more, no less.
Now let’s suppose that in our resistance to extermination we begin to seek allies (we have). Let’s suppose further that we were to take revolutionary Marxism at its word: that it intends nothing less than the complete overthrow of the European capitalists order which has presented this threat to our very existence. This would seem to be a natural alliance for American Indian people to enter into. After all, as the Marxists say, it is the capitalists who set us up to be a national sacrifice. This is true as far as it goes.
But, as I’ve tried to point out, this “truth” is very deceptive. Revolutionary Marxism is committed to even further perpetuation and perfection of the very industrial process which is destroying us all. It offers only to “redistribute” the results–the money, maybe–of this industrialization to a wider section of the population. It offers to take wealth from the capitalists and pass it around; but in order to do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system. Once again, the power relations within European society will have to be altered, but once again the effects upon American Indian peoples here and non-Europeans elsewhere will remain the same. This is much the same as when power was redistributed from the church to private business during the so-called bourgeois revolution. European society changed a bit, at least superficially, but its conduct toward non-Europeans continued as before. You can see what the American Revolution of 1776 did for American Indians. It’s the same old song.
Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to “rationalize” all people in relation to industry–maximum industry, maximum production. It is a doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called us “precapitalists” and “primitive.” Precapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists; we have always been economically retarded in Marxist terms. The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or “proletarians,” as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could only occur through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society.
I think there’s a problem with language here. Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs. Like germs, European culture goes through occasional convulsions, even divisions within itself, in order to go on living and growing. This isn’t a revolution we’re talking about, but a means to continue what already exists. An amoeba is still an amoeba after it reproduces. But maybe comparing European culture to an amoeba isn’t really fair to the amoeba. Maybe cancer cells are a more accurate comparison because European culture has historically destroyed everything around it; and it will eventually destroy itself.
So, in order for us to really join forces with Marxism, we American Indians would have to accept the national sacrifice of our homeland; we would have to commit cultural suicide and become industrialized and Europeanized.
At this point, I’ve got to stop and ask myself whether I’m being too harsh. Marxism has something of a history. Does this history bear out my observations? I look to the process of industrialization in the Soviet Union since 1920 and I see that these Marxists have done what it took the English Industrial Revolution 300 years to do; and the Marxists did it in 60 years. I see that the territory of the USSR used to contain a number of tribal peoples and that they have been crushed to make way for the factories. The Soviets refer to this as “the National Question,” the question of whether the tribal peoples had the right to exist as peoples; and they decided the tribal peoples were an acceptable sacrifice to the industrial needs. I look to China and I see the same thing. I look to Vietnam and I see Marxists imposing an industrial order and rooting out the indigenous tribal mountain people.
I hear the leading Soviet scientist saying that when uranium is exhausted, then alternatives will be found. I see the Vietnamese taking over a nuclear power plant abandoned by the U.S. military. Have they dismantled and destroyed it? No, they are using it. I see China exploding nuclear bombs, developing uranium reactors, and preparing a space program in order to colonize and exploit the planets the same as the Europeans colonized and exploited this hemisphere. It’s the same old song, but maybe with a faster tempo this time.
The statement of the Soviet scientist is very interesting. Does he know what this alternative energy source will be? No, he simply has faith. Science will find a way. I hear revolutionary Marxists saying that the destruction of the environment, pollution, and radiation will all be controlled. And I see them act upon their words. Do they know how these things will be controlled? No, they simply have faith. Science will find a way. Industrialization is fine and necessary. How do they know this? Faith. Science will find a way. Faith of this sort has always been known in Europe as religion. Science has become the new European religion for both capitalists and Marxists; they are truly inseparable; they are part and parcel of the same culture. So, in both theory and practice, Marxism demands that non-European peoples give up their values, their traditions, their cultural existence altogether. We will all be industrialized science addicts in a Marxist society.
I do not believe that capitalism itself is really responsible for the situation in which American Indians have been declared a national sacrifice. No, it is the European tradition; European culture itself is responsible. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it. To ally with Marxism is to ally with the very same forces that declare us an acceptable cost.
There is another way. There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. A lopsided emphasis on humans by humans–the Europeans’ arrogance of acting as though they were beyond the nature of all related things–can only result in a total disharmony and a readjustment which cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control and restores the harmony. There is no need for a revolutionary theory to bring this about; it’s beyond human control. The nature peoples of this planet know this and so they do not theorize about it. Theory is an abstract; our knowledge is real.
Distilled to its basic terms, European faith–including the new faith in science–equals a belief that man is God. Europe has always sought a Messiah, whether that be the man Jesus Christ or the man Karl Marx or the man Albert Einstein. American Indians know this to be totally absurd. Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only through the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw.
But rationality is a curse since it can cause humans to forget the natural order of things in ways other creatures do not. A wolf never forgets his or her place in the natural order. American Indians can. Europeans almost always do. We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science. God is the Supreme Being; all else must be inferior.
All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of all things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things come full circle, back to where they started. That’s revolution. And that’s a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other correct peoples.
American Indians have been trying to explain this to Europeans for centuries. But, as I said earlier, Europeans have proven themselves unable to hear. The natural order will win out, and the offenders will die out, the way deer die when they offend the harmony by over-populating a given region. It’s only a matter of time until what Europeans call “a major catastrophe of global proportions” will occur. It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don’t want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That’s revolution.
American Indians are still in touch with these realities–the prophecies, the traditions of our ancestors. We learn from the elders, from nature, from the powers. And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere. I don’t care if it’s only a handful living high in the Andes. American Indian people will survive; harmony will be reestablished. That’s revolution.
At this point, perhaps I should be very clear about another matter, one which should already be clear as a result of what I’ve said. But confusion breeds easily these days, so I want to hammer home this point. When I use the term European, I’m not referring to a skin color or a particular genetic structure. What I’m referring to is a mind-set, a worldview that is a product of the development of European culture. People are not genetically encoded to hold this outlook; they are acculturated to hold it. The same is true for American Indians or for the members of any culture.
It is possible for an American Indian to share European values, a European worldview. We have a term for these people; we call them “apples”–red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Blacks have their “oreos”; Hispanos have “Coconuts” and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I’m not sure what term should be applied to them other than “human beings.”
What I’m putting out here is not a racial proposition but a cultural proposition. Those who ultimately advocate and defend the realities of European culture and its industrialism are my enemies. Those who resist it, who struggle against it, are my allies, the allies of American Indian people. And I don’t give a damn what their skin color happens to be. Caucasian is the white term for the white race: European is an outlook I oppose.
The Vietnamese Communists are not exactly what you might consider genetic Caucasians, but they are now functioning as mental Europeans. The same holds true for Chinese Communists, for Japanese capitalists or Bantu Catholics or Peter “MacDollar” down at the Navajo Reservation or Dickie Wilson up here at Pine Ridge. There is no racism involved in this, just an acknowledgment of the mind and spirit that make up culture.
In Marxist terms I suppose I’m a “cultural nationalist.” I work first with my people, the traditional Lakota people, because we hold a common worldview and share an immediate struggle. Beyond this, I work with other traditional American Indian peoples, again because of a certain commonality in worldview and form of struggle. Beyond that, I work with anyone who has experienced the colonial oppression of Europe and who resists its cultural and industrial totality. Obviously, this includes genetic Caucasians who struggle to resist the dominant norms of European culture. The Irish and the Basques come immediately to mind, but there are many others.
I work primarily with my own people, with my own community. Other people who hold non-European perspectives should do the same. I believe in the slogan, “Trust your brother’s vision,” although I’d like to add sisters into the bargain. I trust the community and the culturally based vision of all the races that naturally resist industrialization and human extinction. Clearly, individual whites can share in this, given only that they have reached the awareness that continuation of the industrial imperatives of Europe is not a vision, but species suicide. White is one of the sacred colors of the Lakota people–red, yellow, white and black. The four directions. The four seasons. The four periods of life and aging. The four races of humanity. Mix red, yellow, white and black together and you get brown, the color of the fifth race. This is a natural ordering of things. It therefore seems natural to me to work with all races, each with its own special meaning, identity and message.
But there is a peculiar behavior among most Caucasians. As soon as I become critical of Europe and its impact on other cultures, they become defensive. They begin to defend themselves. But I’m not attacking them personally; I’m attacking Europe. In personalizing my observations on Europe they are personalizing European culture, identifying themselves with it. By defending themselves in this context, they are ultimately defending the death culture. This is a confusion which must be overcome, and it must be overcome in a hurry. None of us has energy to waste in such false struggles.
Caucasians have a more positive vision to offer humanity than European culture. I believe this. But in order to attain this vision it is necessary for Caucasians to step outside European culture–alongside the rest of humanity–to see Europe for what it is and what it does.
To cling to capitalism and Marxism and all other “isms” is simply to remain within European culture. There is no avoiding this basic fact. As a fact, this constitutes a choice. Understand that the choice is based on culture, not race. Understand that to choose European culture and industrialism is to choose to be my enemy. And understand that the choice is yours, not mine.
This leads me back to address those American Indians who are drifting through the universities, the city slums, and other European institutions. If you are there to resist the oppressor in accordance with your traditional ways, so be it. I don’t know how you manage to combine the two, but perhaps you will succeed. But retain your sense of reality. Beware of coming to believe the white world now offers solutions to the problems it confronts us with. Beware, too, of allowing the words of native people to be twisted to the advantages of our enemies. Europe invented the practice of turning words around on themselves. You need only look to the treaties between American Indian peoples and various European governments to know that this is true. Draw your strength from who you are.
A culture which regularly confuses revolt with resistance, has nothing helpful to teach you and nothing to offer you as a way of life. Europeans have long since lost all touch with reality, if ever they were in touch with who you are as American Indians.
So, I suppose to conclude this, I should state clearly that leading anyone toward Marxism is the last thing on my mind. Marxism is as alien to my culture as capitalism and Christianity are. In fact, I can say I don’t think I’m trying to lead anyone toward anything. To some extent I tried to be a “leader,” in the sense that the white media like to use that term, when the American Indian Movement was a young organization. This was a result of a confusion I no longer have. You cannot be everything to everyone. I do not propose to be used in such a fashion by my enemies. I am not a leader. I am an Oglala Lakota patriot. That is all I want and all I need to be. And I am very comfortable with who I am.”

Reactie Grauwe Eeuw op antwoord onderzoeksgroep



Onderstaande email stuurden wij naar het onderzoeksteam verantwoordelijk voor het onderzoek naar geweld tijdens de politionele acties. Dit is een reactie op hun publicatie waarin aanvullende antwoorden werden gegeven.


Beste Frank, beste onderzoeksgroep.

Wij (De Grauwe Eeuw) willen graag reageren op jullie aanvullende antwoorden van maandag jl. Wij zullen ons toespitsen op het door ons ingebrachte gedeelte want wij kunnen niet voor de anderen praten. Er komt spoedig nog een collectieve reactie van de ondertekenaars maar omdat ons aandeel vooral over nieuwe onderzoeksvragen gaat en de rest vragen waren over een reeds bekend deel van het onderzoek, willen wij graag apart reageren op dit gedeelte.

We willen we tevens namens onszelf benadrukken dat jullie reactie niet ervan getuigt dat jullie daadwerkelijk begrijpen wat racisme is en hoe jullie eraan (kunnen) bijdragen. Dat maakten meerdere situaties tijdens de ronde tafel ook ons duidelijk. Het meest recente, tevens duidelijk voorbeeld is echter dat een witte academicus een uitgebreid uitgewerkt antwoord krijgt en de niet witte mensen worden afgescheept met een schijn antwoord.

Betreft jullie antwoord aan ons:
Allereerst: Jullie wassen onze woorden wit of zelfs helemaal uit door jullie gegoochel met woorden. Wij hebben namelijk geëist dat er onderzoeksvragen aan jullie onderzoek toegevoegd worden. We hebben dat dus niet voorgesteld, het enige wat we voorstelden was de vorm van de vragen, dus niet dat die (of bepaalde) vragen er in zouden komen. Wanneer jullie een eis afdoen als suggestie dan ontnemen jullie het dringende aspect van deze eisen weg, het belang van de onderzoeksvragen die we eisen onstsnapt zo mogelijk aan de buitenstaanders die meelezen . Een suggestie doet ook voorkomen alsof het geen kritiek was op jullie onderzoek terwijl het juist kritiek is op een onvolledig onderzoek. Het onderzoek is bij uitstek onvolledig alleen al omdat jullie officiële standpunt is dat het niet vast te stellen is dat Indonesië de RTC afpers som betaald heeft of niet. De uitkomst van die vraag heeft namelijk op veel van jullie onderzoeksvragen invloed.

Een ander punt mbt de terminologie waar we op willen ingaan is de manier waarop jullie de onderzoeksvragen die wij eisen omschrijven. Wij vragen niet om een onderzoek naar de economische kant van kolonialisme, onze onderzoeksvragen gaan specifiek over de verbanden tussen de economische motieven en de mate van hevigheid van het Nederlandse geweld. Er zijn genoeg onderzoeken over de economie voor, tijdens en na de politionele acties. Zo zijn er bijvoorbeeld het onderzoek "Het Nederland belang Indië" van Baudet en Fennemaover de periode na de dekolonisatie en het onderzoek van economisch wetenschapper Gé AH Prince 'De economische samenwerking tussen Nederland en Indië' en talloze andere onderzoeken. Er is geen enkel onderzoek naar het of, hoe en in welke mate economische motievenbijdroegen aan het gepleegde Nederlandse geweld. Jullie wissen hiermee een heel belangrijke nuance uit omdat juist die verbanden 150.000 mensen het leven kosten.

We hebben ook wat concrete vragen nav jullie reactie.

-Waar staat beschreven welke van onze onderzoeksvragen er wel in jullie onderzoek voorkomen? Wanneer jullie daar geen transparantie over geven, dan bemoeilijken jullie ons om tijdig de ontbrekende punten te onderzoeken. Dit lijkt op een bewuste strategie van jullie omdat wij aangekondigd hebben zelf onderzoek te gaan doen wanneer onze vragen niet toegevoegd worden.
Jullie geven ook aan dat de meeste van onze vragen in het onderzoek opgenomen zijn en dat is aangegeven in het gesprek. Jullie hebben dit tijdens dit gesprek wel geopperd maar jullie reactie was speculatief en het leek alsof jullie zelf niet zeker wisten of onze punten onderzocht worden. Voor ons was het ook volslagen onduidelijk of en zo ja welke vragen in het onderzoek voorkomen. Het is daardoor onduidelijk of en welke vragen er na de ronde tafel zijn toegevoegd. Kunnen jullie dat nog kenbaar maken?

-Wanneer deze vragen al voor ons overleg in het onderzoek zaten, gaan jullie dan de evt vragen die niet in het onderzoek voorkomen alsnog toevoegen? De vragen gerelateerd aan de 4,5 miljard zullen namelijk sowieso niet voorkomen in het onderzoek zoals het uitzag tot aan de ronde tafel, gezien jullie officiële standpunt over de 4,5 miljard. Andere vragen zijn daardoor mogelijk gebaseerd op onjuiste info.

Wij hebben, naast die onderzoeksvragen meer zaken geëist waarop jullie niet ingegaan zijn.

-Waar is de reactie op onze eis een onafhankelijke onderzoeker de samenvatting te laten schrijven. Er waren al legitieme bezwaren tegen Gert Oostindie maar wanneer jullie onze kritiek over Oostindies impliciete en expliciete racisme ook nog gaan negeren dan is dit onderzoek sowieso nooit onafhankelijk. Jullie beloofden dat er ook focus zou liggen op racisme, dan kun je niet anders dan ook de focus leggen op het racisme in jullie eigen onderzoek. Jullie wissen met deze actie overigens ook onze niet witte en antiracistische perspectieven uit en beschermen Oostindie zo tegen terechte kritiek. Wanneer er in de onderzoeksgroep zelf al zulke witte solidariteit heerst, wat doen jullie dan met de voorbeelden van racisme die uit het onderzoek boven komen?

-Waar is onze reactie op de eis dat er uit respect voor mensenrechten een apart gedeelte zou komen over de grootschalige Nederlandse roof en het racisme wat hieraan ten grondslag lag? Dit gedeelte lijkt ons vooral voor het NIOD iets om serieus te nemen.

Beste Frank, beste onderzoekers, jullie gaven nu al meerdere malen aan dat wij jullie moesten vertrouwen. Frank, jij deed dat al in Pakhuis de Zwijger in september en daar is jou haarfijn uitgelegd dat het voor niet witte mensen statisch en historisch gevaarlijk is om witte instituten op hun woord te geloven. Jij werd hierop zelfs kwaad en wou weglopen. Ook aan de ronde tafel werd er op mijn stelling gereageerd met verontwaardiging. Dit terwijl, wanneer jullie de geschiedenis zouden kennen, jullie zouden moeten weten dat die stelling legitiem is. Met jullie reactie op ons, die jullie zelfs op jullie site plaatsen, doen jullie exact hetgene als waar wij op doelden toen wij aangeven dat ons vertrouwen alles behalve vanzelfsprekend is. Jullie wissen onze stem uit en doen dat bewust, zoveel is ons inmiddels wel duidelijk geworden.

Wanneer jullie dan toch zo graag ons vertrouwen hebben, zouden een compleet antwoord en een rectificatie of minstens aanpassingen een beschaafd begin kunnen zijn om te bewijzen jullie ook echt te vertrouwen zijn. Ons scepticisme jegens jullie onderzoek is nu echter exponentieel aan het toenemen. Dat zal toch niet de beoogde uitkomst van de bijeenkomst zijn geweest?

Wij zien graag jullie reactie, inclusief de ontbrekende antwoorden, tegemoet.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Michael van Zeijl

De Grauwe Eeuw

vrijdag 1 februari 2019

Persbericht: Nederland stal miljarden van Indonesië Indonesië betaalde de wederopbouw van Nederland.








- P E R S B E R I C H T - (English below)
Nederland stal miljarden van Indonesië Indonesië betaalde de wederopbouw van Nederland.


UTRECHT, Zaterdag 2 februari 2019 - Afgelopen donderdag vond er een ronde tafel discussie plaats tussen het onderzoeksteam van NIOD, KITLV en NIMH, de instituten die onderzoek doen naar het geweld in Nederlands Indië/Indonesië in de periode ‘45-’50, en ondertekenaars van een open brief waarin felle kritiek geuit werd jegens dat onderzoek. O.a. vertegenwoordigd was Actiegroep De Grauwe Eeuw, die de open brief ook getekend had en die enkele eisen aan het onderzoeksteam stelde omdat de groep het onderzoek anders niet legitiem vindt. Dit baseerde De Grauwe Eeuw o.a. op informatie waarop leden van de groep gestuit waren. “Wij doen al enige tijd zelf onderzoek naar deze periode en kwamen er zo achter dat de financiële belangen een wel heel belangrijke factor speelde in het geweld wat Nederland in hen oude kolonie gebruikte.” aldus Michael van Zeijl, woordvoerder van de actiegroep. “Zo’n grote factor, dat het meegenomen moet worden in dit onderzoek.” vervolgt van Zeijl.
“Tevens hebben wij een decennia oud raadsel opgelost, wij zijn namelijk in het bezit gekomen van het onomstotelijk bewijs dat Indonesië minstens fl 3,88 miljard heeft betaald van de afpers som van fl 4,5 miljard die Nederland eiste in het RTC verdrag in ruil voor hun vrijheid, een bedrag omgerekend evenveel als de volledige Marshallhulp aan Nederland.”, gaat van Zeijl verder “Nederland heeft altijd onduidelijkheid gezaaid over of en hoeveel Indonesië heeft betaald, dat was aan de overlegtafel ook te merken toen de onderzoekers gevraagd werd of Indonesië ooit betaald heeft aan Nederland. Het letterlijke antwoord was; ‘Daar zijn tegenstrijdige meningen over.’, en wij weten nu wat de feiten zijn.”, grijnst de activist. De Grauwe Eeuw heeft meerdere documenten in bezit met de bevestiging dat Indonesië betaalde en waar o.a. Uit blijkt dat Nederland doelbewust miljarden heeft gefraudeerd ten nadele van Indonesië. “Nederland heeft tijdens de RTC een sprookjesbedrag van fl 6,5 miljard gevraagd maar uit deze documenten blijkt dat een groot deel van dat bedrag ongefundeerd is. Dit deel was door een Nederlandse topambtenaar genaamd Hirschfeld uit de duim gezogen omdat Nederland ervan uitging dat niet alle RTC claims door de onderhandelingen zouden komen en die op deze manier wel opgevangen werden.” betoogt van Zeijl. “Laat dit eens goed op je inwerken. Dit is gewoon dezelfde smerige Nederlandse kolonisten mentaliteit die we al 5 eeuwen zien. Nederland minacht de mensen die ze afknepen nog steeds trouwens. Kijk naar de dodenherdenking waar ze nog steeds de slachtoffers onder de oorspronkelijke bewoners van de Archipel, die Nederland maakte, niet herdenken maar hun moordenaars wel. Terwijl Indonesië nota bene voor de wederopbouw van dit land heeft betaald.”, concludeert van Zeijl "Wij hebben, voor onze eigen veiligheid, verschillende relevante partijen en internationale hoogwaardigheidsbekleders op de hoogte gesteld van de documenten en stellen ze voor hun beschikbaar. Het onderzoeksteam hebben we de informatie gegeven zodat zij deze kunnen meenemen in hun onderzoek. Omdat we Nederland niet vertrouwen publiceren we de documenten pas wanneer een onafhankelijke partij ze heeft gezien en het bestaan ervan authenticeert. De inhoud van het meest belastende document is het volgende:"


English:




*foto's later toegevoegd/pictures added later




--- - M E M O R A N D U M - Van: DBI/EF 18 mei 1956 Aan: DBI no 99 Indonesische schulden.- Volgens een Pia-bericht van 16 mei heeft de financieel-economische sectie van de Staatscommissie ter bestudering van de ge­volgen van de opzegging der RTC-overeenkomsten een viertal sub­secties ingesteld. Een dezer sub-secties zal zich bezig houden met de schuldenregeling. Volgens het bericht heeft deze sub­sectie tot taak een standpunt te formuleren ten aanzien van de schulden die Indonesië aan Nederland heeft als uitvloeisel van de RTC-overeenkomsten, en de kwestie van de Indonesische bijdrage voor de pensioenen van ambtenaren van het voormalige Nederlands-Indische Gouvernement. Aangezien er nog geen indicaties bekend zijn omtrent de rich­ting waarin deze sub-sectie zal werken, is dus ook nog niet te voorspellen welk advies zij aan de regering zal geven. Desalniettemin zou DBI/EF terzake een veronderstelling willen uitspreken. Het lijkt on waarschijnlijk dat de sub-sectie zal aanbevelen om alle schulden aan Nederland integraal te blijven aanvaarden, terwijl anderzijds een annulering van alle schulden met een be­roep op de eenzijdige opzegging van de Finec ook niet zeer waarschijnlijk lijkt. Het komt DBI/EF waarschijnlijk voor, dat de sub-sectie zal ad­viseren slechts een deel van de ter RTC overgenomen schulden te honoreren. Het deel dat van de hand gewezen zal worden, zal vermoedelijk verband houden met de laatstelijk door Sumitro aangeroerde kwestie van "de aan Indonesië opgedrongen schulden met een onereus karakter". Vermoedelijk zal de sub-sectie met een berekening komen, waarmede aangetoond wordt dat ·-de kwijtge­scholden f. 2 miljard niet alle kosten van de politionele ac­ties tegen Indonesië dekt, met andere woorden dat een deel van de door Indonesië hij de Soevereiniteitsoverdracht overgenomen schulden een onereus karakter heeft, hetwelk zij zal aanbevelen niet meer te aanvaarden. De vraag is hoe groot dit naar Indonesische mening als onereus te kwalificeren deel der RTC-schulden is. Ter RTC is van Indonesische zijde een opstelling gemaakt van de schulden, die naar Indonesische mening niet voor overname in aanmerking behoorden te komen, aangezien deze ontstaan waren als uitvloeisel van de politionele acties. Het totale bedrag hiermede gemoeid zou volgens bedoelde Indonesische opstelling f. 3, 5 miljard bedragen hebben. Indien deze opstelling door de sub-sectie als richt­snoer wordt aanvaard, zou dit betekenen dat Indonesië zich thans van een bedrag ad f. 1,5 miljard zou ontdoen. De huidige stand van de Indonesische schulden overgenomen ter RTC bedraagt circa f. 640 miljoen. Hierbij komt nog het nog niet afgeloste deel van de in 1950 verstrekte lening, bedragende circa f. 240 miljoen. Het totaal van de RTC-schulden plus de lening van 1950 bedragen derhalve rond f. 880 miljoen. Zou de sub-sectie adviseren conform de Indonesische schuldenopstelling ter RTC, dan zou dit betekenen dat de gehele nog uitstaande RTC-schuld plus het restant van de lening 1950 door Indonesië geannuleerd zou worden. Daarboven zou dan nog een bedrag van f. 1,5 miljard - f. 880 miljoen = f. 620 miljoen open blijven staan als bedrag waarop Indonesië recht zou hebben. De Vraag is hoe Indonesië zich hiervoor zou willen schadeloos stellen. Hoewel in strijd met alle rechtsbeginselen lijkt het niet geheel uitgesloten, dat, aangenomen dat de sub-sectie de Indonesische schuldenopstelling anno 1949 als richtsnoer ge­bruikt, de Indonesische regering verhaal zal zoeken op de in In­donesië aanwezige Nederlandse particuliere vermogensobjecten. Dit wil dus zeggen confiscatie tot een bedrag van circa f. 620 miljoen. Een andere methode zou wellicht kunnen zijn de nog resterende Indonesische pensioenverplichtingen geheel te annuleren. De geka­pitaliseerde waarde van deze verplichtingen, voor zover nog door Indonesië gehonoreerd, is echter belangrijk minder dan f. 620 miljoen. Vermoedelijk bedraagt deze waarde rond f. 150 miljoen. Hierin zou Indonesië dus onvoldoende verhaal voor zijn eventuele vermeende claim kunnen vinden. De vraag is wat van Nederlandse zijde eventueel tegen een dgl. gang van zaken ondernomen zou kunnen worden. Het antwoord op deze vraag moet helaas zeer teleurstellend zijn nl. vermoedelijk niets. Het resultaat van eventuele rechtstreekse demarches staat bij voorbaat reeds vast, terwijl het interes­seren van andere landen voor de Nederlandse financiële belangen bij Indonesië, naar thans gebleken is, ook nauwelijks enig re­sultaat oplevert. Dezerzijds worden nog wel pogingen in het gesteld om na te gaan hoe men ter RTC tot het bedrag van f. 2 miljard kwijtgescholden schuld is gekomen. Dit is zeer moeilijk na te gaan aangezien de finale vaststelling geschiedde in een zeer kleine Commissie die geen stukken heeft geproduceerd. Wat tot dusverre wel is gebleken is dat van Nederlandse zijde gemotiveerd werd aangetoond dat de kosten verbonden aan de politionele acties slechts __ circa f. 700 miljoen hebben bedragen. Hoe de ont­brekende f. 1300 miljoen berekend zijn is onbekend. Het schijnt dat de heer Hirschfeld tot dit bedrag is gekomen door alle schulden, waarvan naar zijn mening te verwachten w.as dat zij door In­donesië toch niet gehonoreerd zouden worden, bij elkaar op te tellen. Door de heer Evers, destijds lid van de Militaire subcommissie ter RTC, zal zo spoedig mogelijk terzake contact met Dr. Hirschfeld worden opgenomen. DBI/EF vreest echter dat hoezeer wij ook kunnen aantonen dat de kwijtgescholden f. 2 miljard geheel of meer dan geheel de kos­ten van de politionele acties dekt, dit weinig of niets zal kun­nen veranderen aan de Indonesische eventuele plannen. Tenslotte zij nog aangetekend dat de heer Sumitro is zijn beruchte artikel in Pedoman van 24 april tot de slotsom kwam, dat Indone­sië een vordering heeft op Nederland van f. 540 miljoen (na annulering van alle schulden). Dit bedrag is niet ver verwijderd van de hierboven vermelde f. 620 miljoen.
------


English:

Friday Februari 1st, 2019 Pressrelease: The Netherlands stole Indonesian billions Indonesia payed for post WWII reconstruction of The Netherlands P R E S S R E L E A S E - The Netherlands stole Indonesian billions Indonesia payed for Post WWII reconstruction of The Netherlands Utrecht, Saturday February 2nd 2019 - Last Thursday a round-table discussion took place between a research group of NIOD, KITLV and NIMH, the institutions researching the violence perpetrated in the Dutch Indies/Indonesia in the period 1945 to 1950, and signatories of an open letter sharply criticizing the investigation. Represented among others was Activist Collective ‘De Grauwe Eeuw’, whom having signed the open letter, had set some requirements for the research group to be met, in order to be able to legitimize the investigation at all. ‘The Grauwe Eeuw’ had based these demands among others on information by their members. Spokesperson for the collective, Michael van Zeijl, states: “We’ve been conducting our own research and found the financial interests were a significant factor in the violence the Dutch met out in their former colony. Such a significant factor it should be considered in this investigation”. “What’s more is we have solved a decades old riddle. We’ve gained possession of irrefutable evidence of Indonesia having payed at least fl. 3,88 billion out of the initially in the Round Table Conference (RTC) treaty demanded fl. 4,5 billion. An extortion sum to be payed in exchange for granting Indonesia their freedom. A sum, which when converted equals the full amount of Marshall-help granted the Netherlands at the time”, van Zeijl continues. “Doubts as to weather or not, and if yes what amounts Indonesia has payed have always been sown by the Netherlands. Which was particularly noticeable when researchers were asked weather or not the Netherlands were ever payed by Indonesia. The literal answer was: ‘there’s conflicting opinions on that matter’, but we now know the stone cold facts”, the activist states with a grin. ‘De Grauwe Eeuw’ has multiple documents in its possession that not only confirm the fact Indonesia but also make it clear the Netherlands purposefully defrauded Indonesia out of billions of guilders. “During the RTC a fictive claim of a sum total of fl. 6,5 billion was made, yet these documents show a large part of the requested amount to be unfounded. These sums were made up by a top official by the name of Hirschfeld since he anticipated not all claims would make it and these fictive additions would diminish such losses” Van Zeijl argues. “Please let that sink in. This is the selfsame vile Dutch colonizer-mentality that we’ve seen for the last five centuries. The Dutch in the meantime still despise the peoples they pinched off. Just take into account the commemoration of the dead, where perpetrators are honored, yet their victims amongst the original inhabitants of the Dutch established archipelago are excluded from said commemoration and in so doing erased. While in addition to that having had Indonesia pay for the post WWII reconstruction of the Netherlands” Van Zeijl concludes. “In order to secure our own safety, we have informed several relevant parties and international dignitaries of the existence of these documents and are making them available to them. Also we’ve provided the information to the research group in order for it to be added to the investigation. Since we do not trust the Dutch State we’ll only publish these documents after authentication by an independent party. *** - M E M O R A N D U M - Sender: DBI/EF May 18th 1956 To: DBI no 99 Indonesian debts.- According to a Pia-message dated the 16th of May, the financial-economical department of the State-commission inquiring into results of terminating the RTC-accords, has set out four subsections. One of these subsections shall deal with debt settlement. According to the message this subsection is tasked with formulating a standpoint regarding the Indonesias debts to the Netherlands flowing forth from the RTC-accords, and the matter of Indonesian contributions the former Dutch-Indies government-officials pensions. Given there’s no indications as to what direction this subsection shall be taking, there’s no way of predicting what advice the government shall be offered. Notwithstanding that DBI/EF purposefully would like to formulate a supposition. It seems unlikely the subsection shall recommend accepting all debts to the Netherlands in it’s entirety, while on the other hand an annulment of all debts invoking a one-sided cancellation of Finec doesn’t seem very likely either. It seems likely to DBI/EF that it’s to be adviced by the subsection to honor only parts of the debts adopted at the RTC. The parts expected to be rejected will probably be in relation to the by Sumitro recently mentioned matter of ‘onerous debt forced upon Indonesia’. Likely the subsection will contain calculations showing .-the remitted f. 2 billion won’t cover all costs of the policing-actions against Indonesia. In other words: they will be recommending the onerous part of the at the sovereignty transfer adopted debt will no longer be accepted. - 2 - M E M E R A N D U M -2- What portion of the RTC-debts are to be qualified as onerous according to the Indonesian opinion, remains to be seen. From the Indonesian side at the RTC an adjustment of the debts was made, that according to Indonesian opinion does not qualify for acceptance, given they flowed forth from policing-actions. According to the Indonesian adjustment, the sum total involved would have amounted to f. 3,5 billion. In case the subsection accepts this adjustment as a guideline, consequence would be Indonesia ridding itself of an amount of 1,5 billion. Currently Indonesian debts accepted at the RTC amounts to approximately f. 640 million. Additionally there’s an amount open on the loan provided in 1950, worth approximately f. 240. Thus totaling the RTC-debts plus the 1950 loan at approx f. 880 million. Would the subsections advice be in conformity with the Indonesian RTC-adjustment, result would be Indonesia annulling the entire outstanding RTC-debt plus the remainder of the 1950-loan. On top of that Indonesia would remain entitled an amount worth f. 1,5 billion - f. 880 million = f. 620. How Indonesia would like to recompense is the question. Presumed the subsection will use the 1949 Indonesian debt-adjustments, though conflicting with all principles of law, the Indonesian government might countervail on Dutch private assets. Meaning confiscation up to approx f. 620 million worth. Another method may well be completely annulling the remainder of the Indonesian pension obligations. For so far still honored by the Indonesians, the capitalized value of these obligations constitutes a relevantly smaller amount then f. 620 million. Presumably this amounts to approx f. 150 million. Not providing Indonesia enough recompense - 3 - M E M O R A N D U M - 3 - for it’s potential putative claim. Question is what’s to be undertaken against such a cause of events from the Dutch part. The very disappointing answer to this question must be probably nothing. The to be expected end results ts of direct demarches are clear in advance, whereas it has turned out interesting other nations for Dutch financial interests in Indonesia has hardly yielded any results either. From our side we’re trying to attempt reconstructing how a remitted mount of f. 2 billion was compounded. which is very hard to establish seeing the final determination happened in a very small commission, producing no documents. So far it has turned out that on the Dutch part motivated proof of the costs in connection to the policing actions have been amounted at merely __ opprox f. 700 million. How the remaining f. 1300 million were charged is unknown. It appears mr. Hirschfeld arrived at this amount by adding those debts that to his opinion were expected not to be honored by Indonesia. Given the case at hand Mr. Hirschfeld will be contacted as soon as possible by Mr. Evers, member of the Military sub commission at the time. Though however much we’ll be able to demonstrate the costs of the policing actions or even more is covered by the remitted f. 2 billion, DBI/EF fears this will have little or no effect on Indonesias possible plans. Lastly note that in his famed Pedoman article of April 24th, Mr Sumitro came to the conclusion that Indonesia (after annulment of all debts) has a claim on the Netherlands worth f. 540 million. An amount not far removed from the above mentioned f. 620 million. ~*~


Aanvullende info/additional info

-Vertaling document in bahasa Indonesia
https://historibersama.com/memorandum-4-5-billion-guilders/

-Open brief van de ondertekenaars/open letter about research
https://historibersama.com/questions-about-the-dutch-research-project/

-Onderzoekseisen De Grauwe Eeuw/investigation demands the Gray Age

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1974676829316208&id=1849062225211003

Video opnames bijeenkomst/video meeting

https://historibersama.com/questions-about-the-dutch-research-project/

https://www.facebook.com/historibersama/videos/1549193008517082/pl

Over de 4,5 miljard gulden ‘herstelbetalingen’ die Indonesië aan Nederland heeft betaald

Over de financiële voordelen die Nederland gehaald heeft uit de soevereiniteitsoverdracht aan Indonesië op 27 december 1949 wordt door Neder...