| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Islam and resistance to Dutch colonialism in Indonesia |
| 2011-12-12 |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #3 As per various Mil Bloggers-Netters, WATCHING INDONESIA + SE ASIA JIHAD [Philippines] is the real reason why the US wants Marines in AUS, notsomuch agz Rising China versies ASEAN in the SCS. Lest we fergit, AUS SECURITY > why the US + UK historically had + have the [American + Western] SAMOAS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-12-12 22:08 |
| #2 Made it in. I can be somewhat critical though, as the author implied that all resistance is equal, and all was against the Dutch, when this is not the case. For most of the colonial period, Dutch control over the archipelago was tenuous outside of coastal strongholds; only in the early 20th century did Dutch dominance extend to what was to become Indonesia's current boundaries. One of the biggest complaints about colonialism is that it rarely tolerated internal ethnic and religious squabbles between peoples. The Dutch interest was in unity, peace and commerce. They had that weird European idea that the various peoples should be treated more or less equally. And thus, I imagine, most of the revolts were from groups that opposed unity, peace, commerce, and more or less equality; or who saw themselves getting the short end of the stick because either there was little of value where they lived, or they were not particularly industrious. But the acid test for colonialism is twofold. The first is how long a place was a colony, and how far it advanced during that time; and the second is how the former colony behaves after the colonialists leave. Both matter as far as how the colonialists are remembered. For example, when the French ruled a place, they were often cruel, greedy and downright vicious, solely there for the purposes of exploitation. The result is places like Haiti. But when the French occupied for just a short time, they are remembered much more fondly, such as in Mexico, where there are still traces of Francophilism. The British, on the other hand, were firm believers in the British way of doing business. India probably only exists today in its current form because of the British bureaucratic example, and such godsends as the Common Law legal system. (Now granted, even Common Law only works where the people are generally orderly. Pakistan is also a Common Law-Sharia country, and it is anything but.) Finally, the departure of the Dutch was not caused by a popular revolt, but by the Japanese invasion in WWII, that killed some 4 million Indonesians. After their defeat, the Dutch tried moving back in, but were no longer wanted and didn't have the resources to force their way back, so they bowed out. Sukarno took charge, and also had to deal with revolts, the worst of which was the attempt at a communist overthrow, which he utterly crushed. But it weakened him enough for Suharto to take over. Culturally, to this day, the Dutch and Indonesians are still on pretty friendly terms, and both relish the cuisine delicacies and culture of the other. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-12-12 10:57 |
| #1 Unfortunately, the Eurasia Review website seems to be down, but for just me. http://www.eurasiareview.com |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-12-12 09:12 |