Vilkommen in de Nederlande
Holland comes in for a lot of crap. Much of it is justifiable; their brand of socialism leads Europe in going bankrupt; their welfare state is more comprehensive than most, leading to the acceptance of some practices that'd make all but the most insane American leftists yak up their skulls; their social liberalism, with decriminalized marijuana and prostitution, makes a lot of Americans deeply uncomfortable (although if you've knocked around some of the more straitlaced parts of Europe, some of the raucusness of Amsterdam is a relief; you almost feel at home.
But there is much to admire about the Netherlands; they were a small-l liberal country before it was all the rage in Europe. They recognized things like civil liberties and the sanctity of the free market long before the rest of the Continent, and upheld those rights more stridently than most of their neighbors. And forget the stereotypes; in 1940, during the Blitzkrieg that swallowed up France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland, the German troops rated the Dutch as their sternest opponents on the battlefield. The Dutch exile military and underground fought very credibly. And the country learned the same lesson the Danes and Norwegians took from World War II - pacifism is only as valuable as one's paradoxical willingness to defend the peace. During the Cold War, the Dutch military earned yuks for being unionized - but the Dutch also made a point of spending the money to buy the latest, best equipment,and plenty of it (and as long as they weren't under UN control, as at their debacle at Srebrenice, they didn't have many problems). The Dutch contributed their elite Marines to the coalition in Iraq.
Of course, with the explosion of violence among Moslem immigrants (including the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh), Dutch society is in turmoil. But I'm not surprised that Dutch are the first society in Europe to take decisive action:
The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
If they can't stomach it, no need to apply.
Read the whole thing.
Of course, trying to apply the idea to the US would draw brickbats; it'd be establishing a "thought police", some would cry, and they'd be right.
But here's a question: What should immigrants to the US be expected to accept to join our society?
This is not intended to be a partisan political topic; comments that are off-topic or purely partisan will be removed if you're lucky and I'm in a good mood, mutilated for my pleasure otherwise.
Posted by Mitch at
March 16, 2006 03:29 PM
| TrackBack
That's a conflating question (What should immigrants to the US be expected to accept to join our society) if by it you mean that they should be required to ACT in a certain way, speak in a certain way, etc..
Your rights stop at your shoes, is an old line, and immigrants to this, or any society, need to accept that.. just as in the Netherlands.
However, considering a HUGE segment of our own population can't handle that idea - i.e. your personal conduct is something I need to regulate, not for promoting general welfare interests, but simply because I consider your conduct immoral - well Mitch, the better question might be...
What should wingnuts (from either spectrum) be expected to accept to participate in society?
Are you ready to convince your own wing to stop trying to legislate religion into our Constitutional process?
I'm ready to support telling them that eminent domain doesn't mean giving to one private person the property of another, and to tell them that even though I consider gun "nuts" pretty nutty people, they have just such a right under privacy ideals, if not under the 2nd Ammendment.
So to those on the right who are closet bigots against immigrants and immigration, I ask, "Doctor, can take your own medicine?"
PB
Posted by: pb at March 16, 2006 03:39 PMI heard about this on Praeger today, and found it amusing. I guess the idea is that if, upon seeing the kissing guys or the half-naked woman, somebody jumps up, screams "Allah Akbar!" and tries to push a wall over on the guys or stone the woman, they flunk.
Works for me.
Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at March 16, 2006 03:46 PMWhere is the link?
Posted by: Troy at March 16, 2006 03:46 PMThree came to mind...
1. Show the Mohammed cartoons. That should weed out any Islamofacists against free speech.
2. Show them that welfare is not going to be handed out if they're able-bodied and can work.
3. English is our first language. Require immersion and an ability to comprehend it in a reasonable timeframe.
Posted by: Nancy at March 16, 2006 03:55 PMIf immigrants can watch three solid hours of broadcast daytime TV, on a set with no off switch, without trying to escape from the room, then they're not acceptable. We can do better than that.
Posted by: RBMN at March 16, 2006 04:30 PMThis reminded me of something I had read earlier today written by NRO's Jay Nordlinger:
"You will recall an item from Tuesday's Impromptus — praising the Puerto Rican police for giving some visiting Castroite thug a talking-to. What happened? Well, at the World Baseball Classic in San Juan, a man in the stands held a sign that said "Down with Fidel." (Abajo Fidel.) Angel Iglesias, of Castro's National Institute of Sports, accosted him. The police took Iglesias down to the station and gave him a lecture about free speech.
My friend and colleague Rick Brookhiser had a typically tart and astute comment on the affair: "Cuban officials seem to assume they're walking extraterritorialities — like European Muslims."
Posted by: Colleen at March 16, 2006 06:49 PMHow come you didn't alter PB's partisan off topic snark? what does eminent domain, and "gun nuts" have to do with the question? Then there is the shity remark about closet bigots against immigrants. Why does the idea of screening out mohamed Jihad out of the imigration process make someone a bigot?
Posted by: sequel at March 16, 2006 08:21 PMAt the time of the 2000 census there were over 31,000,000 immigrants in the United States.
Posted by: Terry at March 16, 2006 08:56 PMThis is enough. In other words, put immigration into hiatus for, say, 20 years.
The immigrant numbers as a percentage of the national population was much higher at the turn of the 20th century, however. Most of the existing population of the upper midwest dates back to this immigrant surge.
-- anyways --
I think what the Netherlands is doing is a fine idea, despite my strongly liberal tendencies. I have also had this fantasy that at a citizenship swearing in ceremony the men and women should be separated for a few minutes, with each population explained to in no uncertain terms how women are treated - and more importantly NOT treated - in the U.S.
Would I have problems if it was turned around, if I were moving to a more socially repressive country? Umm ... no ... because it would be my choice.
Oh, quick note: you call people from America Americans, people from England English, etc ... but I just can't wrap my head around calling people from the Netherlands Dutch, especially since its so close to Deutsch so its gotta be an Anglicised bastardization, and the wikipedia entry on naming conventions just makes my head hurt...
Posted by: Bill Haverberg at March 17, 2006 12:15 AMSequuel queried on the pb post. I would say, tread lightly. We don't want him showing up at another local blog that shall remain nameless. Ask Badda if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Kermit at March 17, 2006 08:07 AMStudents from the Netherlands score in the top 5 places in math and science among world countries at the high school level... the USA is about 17th .. they must be doing something right... I have spent alot of time there... they are working thru the problems of a tolerant society now in adapting to the faces of Islam in their country. But the tolerance is historical... it comes from the knowledge back in the 17th century that tolerance was the only way to survive as a nation, when the passions of religion were destroying the rest of Europe. Instead the Dutch were a world power in the 17th and 18th centuries due to this and today they have economic clout well beyond the size of the country.
it works for them.
Posted by: mulch54 at March 17, 2006 05:42 PMWhether you accept standardized testing as an arbiter of knowledge or achievement or not (and I generally do not), I am not sure that math and science are necessarily dispositive arbiters of a nation's knowledge or accomplishment.
IN any case, I'm essentially praising the Dutch. Muted praise, but praise nonetheless.
Posted by: mitch at March 18, 2006 06:32 PM