King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima were leaving the Slave Lodge building in central Cape Town when a small group of protesters representing South Africa’s First Nations groups – the earliest inhabitants of the region around Cape Town – surrounded the royal couple and shouted slogans about Dutch colonizers stealing land from their ancestors.
They were literally there to pay a visit to a museum about the atrocities of previous Dutch inhabitants in the land. I don’t know what harassing them was supposed to accomplish.
You don’t understand people protesting a tone-deaf experience?
Are you being purposely obtuse or are you legitimately not understanding?
Remind them where their wealth came from, that real people remain affected by it… More (all) rich people should be confronted this way, if not with violence
When a monarch actually cares about systemic injustice or the origin of their wealth, they just abolish the monarchy.
Make them leave and never come back, that’s what most victims want from their abusers.
You don’t understand why South African people would want to protest the Dutch king and queen?
Sure, the brutal legacy of their genocide looms over the country to this day, but they went to a museum so we good now.
You don’t understand why South African people would want to protest the Dutch king and queen?
No, I don’t particularly understand why the current Dutch king and queen are being considered responsible for the actions of the Dutch 200 years ago.
Sure, the brutal legacy of their genocide looms over the country to this day, but they went to a museum so we good now.
“of their genocide”
In what way were they, the current Dutch king and queen, involved? If you have some historical tidbit I’m missing, by all means, inform me of the sins of Willem-Alexander.
Going to a museum to pay one’s respects, and accompanied by a representative of the people who suffered so, is a positive step, one that should be at least regarded neutrally, not attacked.
In what way were they, the current Dutch king and queen, involved?
Their inheritance is comprised of stolen riches. Their whole socioeconomic status is a result of the crimes of their ancestors. They didnt commit the crime but they have kept the loot and are still profiting from it.
In this case lets talk about African based pirates and other groups enslaving millions of Europeans even before that and after that. Africans were slavers long before Duch arrived and they built riches on selling their own people to white man.
Why are the African people not being blamed for their ancesstral guilt?
Their whole socioeconomic status is a result of the crimes of their ancestors.
So, ancestral guilt.
Its not just “ancestral guilt”. Like I said : “they have kept the loot and are still profiting from it”, And by loot I dont mean only valuable goods but power too. They still benefit from the power imbalance between countries that was created during colonialism. Just look at the world economy and the dynamic between the “economic south” and “economic north”
They are not guilty of colonialism “per se” but they are guilty of perpetuating, and using, the inequality and oppression that colonialism was built on for their own benefit.
So, do you mind telling me whose socioeconomic status isn’t a result of the crimes of their ancestors?
Slaves, descendents of slaves, and the poor. You know, most people.
Right ancestral guilt. Sins of the grandparents visited onto the children. People punished for crimes they didn’t commit.
Did they renounce the inheritance built on human misery and a pile of 20,000 human hands? Or that parts inherited but the sins aren’t?
You keep repeating the severed hands bit but that was Belgium, not NL. Educate yourself before meming online.
As amusing as I’d find the Dutch royal family ceasing to exist over ancestral guilt, as an anti-monarchist, I don’t know how many degrees of separation you require before an inheritance is no longer considered blood-soaked. Is it infinite?
Why is it acceptable to you that the wealth is handed down but ludicrous that the blood is handed down with it?
If someone became an overnight billionaire for murdering your children, how many generations of their kids driving around in Bugattis would it take for you to consider that fortune washed of its sins?
Apparently demanding a wealthy person part with wealth is more upsetting to some people than cutting off people’s hands to acquire it.
So you argue that it is infinite, then?
If I can still see the wealth than I can still see the blood.
Countries are responsible for their actions. That’s how that works.
You don’t get to rape and murder your way through a continent, continue to benefit from your genocide but escape any responsibility because lol that was the Netherlands but we’re the Netherlands, not our problem.
Countries are responsible for their actions. That’s how that works.
Okay, so far, we’re in agreement.
You don’t get to rape and murder your way through a continent, continue to benefit from your genocide but escape any responsibility because lol that was the Netherlands but we’re the Netherlands, not our problem.
How far back does your conception of collective and ancestral guilt go, here? Genuine question.
Ancestral guilty goes back exactly as far as you can trace your ancestory. Lucky for us, that’s literally all royalty is.
So if you don’t trace your ancestry at all, you have no guilt? Ignorance is innocence?
I am thinking it is like god. You have to believe in it first in which case evidence doesn’t matter.
Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
Just the $value of the goods and labour they stole through killing and violence? Extra to account for the wealth that could’ve been created by everything the dutch stole? Should they have to pay damages for the sheer brutality - the cutting off hands, the concentration camps, etc?
Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
How could I answer that without knowing how far back their guilt is supposed to go?
You answer my question, and I’ll have the tools to answer your’s.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
In this case, there’s no mystery about who did what to whom and what they took. The Dutch and English kept very good records. In fact, the whole colonial project was very well accounted for.
Every morning they wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of their ancestors.
An actual positive step would be giving the wealth back. A photo op at a museum before hopping on a plane back to their castle doesn’t help anyone.
Every morning they wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of their ancestors.
Man, every day we wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of our ancestors. The only difference here is the scale of that luxury.
I mean, yeah, and I wouldn’t blame the current victims of those atrocities for protesting.
Have you given the wealth back from the atrocities of your ancestors?
I get what you’re saying, but you have to understand the difference between a middle-class worker versus a literal king and queen. I’m very aware of the opportunities I’ve been given thanks to where and when I was born, but in terms of actual tramsferrable wealth, all I really have to give is a 20 year old Honda.
No, I don’t particularly understand why the current Dutch king and queen are being considered responsible for the actions of the Dutch 200 years ago.
We as a species have decided that generational debt and guilt is a good thing. Did your great great grandfather do something bad? This is means you are a bad person and should be punished for it because you benefited. This type of vindictive anti-justice is totally not sapping energy from productive activity and will create a world of cycles of revenge. Embrace it
First, protest’s don’t necessarily need to accomplish anything, people are allowed to be angry.
Second, the black white wealth inequality in South Africa is still insane and the Dutch are partially responsible for that. Plus you can’t really buy groceries from awareness or excuses.
Third, as a Dutch guy I don’t really mind them being uncomfortable for a bit once in a while, keeps them grounded.
First, protest’s don’t necessarily need to accomplish anything, people are allowed to be angry.
Obviously, people are allowed to be angry. The question is whether the anger is productive.
Third, as a Dutch guy I don’t really mind them being uncomfortable for a bit once in a while, keeps them grounded.
Sure, but shouldn’t the protest have been, I don’t know, elsewhere than the visit to the museum? It’s a very “No good deed goes unpunished” - it’s a small act, sure, but surely making the museum visit the locus for the discomfort is just discouraging high-profile figures from acknowledging these sins?
Okay, but it is a really good time, to protest this topic.
Imagine the protestors showing up when they visit a chocolate factory. Everyone would be wondering, why they chose the chocolate factory of all places to protest slavery.
Better would be protests everywhere they go.
Why?
They made some tokenisation effort to look like they gave a shit, why should that be rewarded?
“Oh we understand you’re still suffering and that we are partially responsible but we went inside that nice air conditioned building and had a guided tour for us after they closed the place down to every other visitor just for us. So like it’s really mean that you’re still angry at us right now”
I think OP’s point was not disregard idea that humans should reflect upon mistakes of the past. There was no reward for that unless you meant protesters being rewarded by verbally hurting someone who actually pays respect to the cause.
Man, if your poinit of view is that you want to discourage high-profile people from visiting these museums because their blood is impure or whatever, I don’t know what to tell you, other than that all that’ll result in is less exposure to these places and these sins.
My point is them visiting a museum means jack fucking shit.
Adamantly agree. It’s token bullshit unless they do something real as a result.
Will wait for that headline.and anger need not always be productive. Sometimes most to all avenues for productive discourse are shut down.
But anger remains a legitimate and reasonable response.
So… I agree with basically everything you’re saying here and I believe you’ve stated it clearly and well.
It is not, it keeps the knowledge of the past happenings alive in general population. It doesn’t matter if it’s part of the court responsibles or marketing or whatever you call it. Media and people will talk about the visit, people will learn there is museum and why. Just like we are now chatting about it.
Thus change that history won’t repeat itself get higher.
I guess this is where we’re supposed to agree that the status quo is working. Is that the angle?
As long as we don’t take NEW advantage of the situation, the current advantage is fine?
Nothing they do will ever mean anything, because nothing can redeem the past.
How are they responsible for that?
Didn’t they go over poor and they just happend to build wealth when black people didn’t? Why do they have to share with another group of people, no one else does. Even the groups in Africa don’t so it’s not like a European idea.
deleted by creator
They still have monarchs?
Yes we do,
However they don’t hold much power over the day to day workings of the country.
The current monarch is essentially an ambassador that travels around the world for state visits and diplomatic talks. Similar to what a president and foreign minister would do.
I doubt support for the royals would be so high if not for all the national and international PR work that they do.
Do they frequently go on poverty tourism to enjoy the spectacle of cultures their people have destroyed? It’s that helpful to your country?
Removed by mod
Sadly yes
Do they actually hold power or is it more like england with using them as trashy entertainment?
They’re not that entertaining unfortunately.
They are the head of state. They embody the State but hold very little actual political power.
The British monarchs still hold power and information came out years ago showing some of the extent of it and how they still decide government actions and laws.
Well that sucks.
It’s hilarious to me that Canadians will pretend the monarchy doesn’t have power over them because they can only appoint and remove the guy who has power over them at will.
Also, that guy?
Can override anything their Prime Minister does.
And they only use that guy to not be rude.
If they wanted to do it directly, they could.
We really want to get rid of them though
Some people want to red rid of them, but by far more people want to keep it, 55% for the monarchy vs 24% for a republic
Removed by mod
I hope their death weighs on your conscience
There reminiscing about the good old days I asume
Of all the places to go and things to see and do why there? Cheap flights to South Africa?
It was a state visit.
