Dutch-Australians All
Our inheritance. Somethings that Mr Ed J. Reitsma (then Consul-General of the Netherlands, in Sydney) said.......
......roughly/freely translated and commented on by me, because I believe it's worth bringing to your attention.......
Mr Reitsma addressed a meeting of the Netherlands Society in Sydney, on May 14th, in 2001, along these lines:
He reminded his audience that they had come together to discuss: What do we do with the inheritance but that they must not be disappointed to hear that this concerned not money but the cultural heritage of the Dutch Australians.
He took them back to the history of migration, asserting that there had been many Dutch people who, at their own initiative, had left for the New World but that the wave of migration, from the Netherlands, in the fifties, could justifiably be called a wave, as thousands left their familiar environments to seek their fortune elsewhere.
And there were reasons for that.
Even while World War Two was still raging, representatives of the Netherlands had gone to London, to develop models for the future of the Netherlands.
It so happened that when Willem Drees became the leader, of the Dutch government, a document which he received was crucial to his long-term vision for the country.
This document predicted that, by the year 2000, there would be 16 million Netherlanders and that it would be unlikely that all those people could be offered, work, food and housing.
This seemed a very reasonable prediction at this time, just after the war, with the then current housing shortage and even shortage of essentials for living.
Two solutions were suggested. One concerned annexing a certain part of Germany, under the terms, agreed on, at the end of the war, and moving the German inhabitants east and moving in the Dutch.
The other option was a massive migration of 5% of qualified people to countries which wanted to take in migrants.
The annexed lands were returned to Germany and the propaganda encouraging migration began.
The Australian government was known to strive for the importing of Caucasian people, in line with the unstated white Australia Policy. Something which caused difficulties for Dutch citizens who wished to migrate from the then Dutch East Indies.
Both the Australian and the Dutch governments were keen to have those (Dutch) who came to Australia lose their cultural identity to an absurd degree. This would make the immigrants seem more acceptable to Australians and it would make taking the decision to leave the Netherlands seem more permanent.
Mr Reitsma suggested that the political circumstances after so many years changed. He himself, unfamiliar with the political circumstances of those years, believed the migrants who left the Netherlands to be pioneering heroes, who dared to exchange the dutch pettiness or small-mindedness for a difficult but free existence.
But, in Australia he had spoken to many who felt that they had simply been thrown out. This was particularly so for the Dutch-Indonesians, but in a totally different context.
Then, according to Mr Reitsma, a few years before he presented this talk, in the Netherlands the term inburgeren became in vogue. It can be translated as naturalising but settling in, fitting in, or even assimilating might all be closely associated.
It was discovered that the " sums " , done in the fifties, did not " add up " and a shortage of labour was made up for by first bringing in people from Spain and Italy and later, from northern Africa and Turkey.
Inburgeren involved a learning process which would lead to better understanding of the Dutch way of life, the norms and values, and an improved standing in the labour market.
Inburgeren was road, laid with good intentions, advice and subsidies, intended to lead to Dutch citizenship.
A way of avoiding ghetoism and social isolation and a way to encourage integration.
Mr Reitsma told the audience that when they had to become Australians, those concepts did not exist. They just had to behave as Australians and no-one will ever know how much it took, how much the homesickness hurt and how many children's tears were shed.
In those circumstances, most of the Dutch-Australian societies evolved.
Mr Reitsma believed that this was not because of nationalistic considerations, the Dutch only wanted to be a little bit overtly Dutch.
No. It was much more to do with sharing the experiences and a longing to express oneself in the way that you'd learnt to do.
It had to do with the inability to completely cut ties with the land of birth, often because of parents and other relatives and t often happened that groups formed of Australians with say, just touch of orange .
For that circumstance we had to, according to Mr Reitsma, thank the establishment of dozens of Dutch social and other clubs, including, in Melbourne the Erasmus Society and in Sydney the Dutch Australian Centre (as it was known as, when he presented this talk).
These were institutions which were established by people who realised how special the history of migration was and that it is worthwhile documenting this history for coming generations.
But also realising that a certain amount of Dutchness had entered Australian society and therefore it is worthwhile to maintain the cultural links with the Netherlands and to make this known to the general public, in addition to the descendants of the Dutch immigrants.
And in this connection, the Dutch churches need a mention, said Mr Reitsma.
He was convinced that they played a significant part in encouraging the acceptance of this new way of life.
Besides common experiences there was a feeling of solidarity, resulting in the establishment of building funds, provision for care of the aged and the raising of money for charity.
Sometimes existing intitutions were adapted to the needs of the immigrants, such as the establishment of the Queen Wiilhelmina Fund, which changed its focus from seafarers to migrants as target group, or the the society which Mr Reitsma was addressing which was established before the accent was put on the term: Dutch-Australians.
According to Mr Reitsma, in the sixties the validity of the political objectives behind the migration process ceased to be, in Australia as well as in the Netherlands.
The stream of people swapping countries came to an end.
Those who still came here (to Australia) tended to be highly trained professionals, who sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently settled.
They usually maintained their Dutch nationality and did not see themselves as fitting in with the aims and objectives of the Dutch Australian societies and institutions, established during, the wave.
In fact, they formed a separate group, non-aligned, although there have definitely been exceptions.
The change of political focus was also evident in the directions taken by the authorities.
Australia established the Special Broadcasting Service in recognition of the possibility that not everyone has the capacity to adapt unconditionally, to new circumstances but that it was a good idea to provide information regarding this via the old, cultural roots.
In the Netherlands the Ministry for Social Affairs shrank its migration service and eventually dissolved it. Also the funding for the migration processing. Migration was considered to be complete.
Meanwhile the Netherlands itself had become a country taking in immigrants.
The Dutch authorities' involvement lessening was made obvious by the scaling down of the consulates, in Australia.
Honorary consulates became the connection to the Netherlands, in Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and last of all, Melbourne.
Meanwhile, the turning of the tide, was also evident among the migrants' societies as well. Memship numbers fell. It became more difficult, according to Mr Reitsma, to find suitable committee members and it became obvious that the second generation was not jumping at the chance to fill the vacancies.
( I was an exception. Replaced my father, who had served for 12 years as chair of the Netherlands Society in Bankstown, to help it stay alive for a few more years. But it must be noted that the founders had always predicted that the needs would have been served after about 25 years. It just seemed a shame, at the time to stop. The society lived on for another three years, after my one year, at the helm.)
Mr Reitsma expressed his belief that the migration wave was a unique event, which gave the organisations that were established, a unique character. And, Mr Reitsma asserted, it had in the meantime, become evident, that, unfortunately there was / is no natural flow-on and purpose for future generations, to serve the purpose for which these institutions were established.
(As the founding members of the Bankstown Club, recognised in 1955!)
And so, Mr Reitsma put this question: What do we do with this heritage?
He pointed out that not every part of this heritage is of equal value, e.g., once there are three people left who know the rules of the Dutch card game: Klaverjassen, then there is no more chance of keeping it alive.
But he expressed concern for the well-being of the icons of the Dutch immigration experience which might not be understood, or valued, or respected by relevant authorities, unaware of the origins, of these icons.
Mr Reitsma believed (This talk was, remember, given in May 2001.) that luckily there were still committee members who could ensure that all would not be lost.
He suggested some choices (Very roughly translated, by me, as in the case of most of this.):
1. If we let events take their natural course, then, for a while longer all will be good (gezellig is a unique Dutch word, supposedly not translatable), until the final, fatal death (of this heritage). Whoever is still alive can worry but we have not worried about future generations.
2. We could select a few organisations and institutions, whose continuing existence we wish to preserve, by modernising and ensuring that they will attract younger generations, who may have different perceptions of what identity, management, enterprise and gezelligheid (e.g., company, socialising, entertainment, etc.) is all about, simply because they did not belong to the original Dutch Australian cohort.
However, making changes which are against one's beliefs or instincts and experiences are not always easy to bring about. Particularly if so much hard work went into establishing the organisation and its facilities.
3. Thirdly, Mr Reitsma said, we could call on that other group, the other Dutch clan, the expatriates and young immigrants, who to his delight often got on very well with second and third generation Dutch Australians, as their world were less far apart as waas sometimes assumed.
They could help to select the facilities and clubs which would also, in the future have a reason to be. They could advise regarding the necessary changes and aims and objectives, ways of going about the required tasks and composition of committees, in the hope that this would lead to a firm commitment of the next generation.
This option would require from the current committees the wisdom to see that advice not as criticism but for what they would really be, namely an ultimate confirmation of the unique and once-only appearance of the Dutch-Australian in the history of this continent.
Mr Reitsma concluded this talk with the invitation to a discussion, to, as he put it, save / rescue the valuable aspects of the extensive and proud heritage and give it a significant home /destination, and avid the risk of misunderstandings and possibly gather as many creative ideas as possible.
A discussion which he was willing to carry on until the chairperson closed the bar.
(Which proves that Mr Reitsma must have had a good sense of humour and hopefully a train ticket or a designated driver, with him.)
He thanked the Sydney Club members, for their attention.
There is no bar here, but please feel free to discuss!!!!
...
The content of my translation of what Mr Reitsma put to the club's members is 97% Mr Reitsma's.
I know I am not alone, in hoping that this speech will not remain filed away, unseen.
I believe it is still very relevant in ou current situation.
Jo(op) Mul(holland).
Mr Reitsma addressed a meeting of the Netherlands Society in Sydney, on May 14th, in 2001, along these lines:
He reminded his audience that they had come together to discuss: What do we do with the inheritance but that they must not be disappointed to hear that this concerned not money but the cultural heritage of the Dutch Australians.
He took them back to the history of migration, asserting that there had been many Dutch people who, at their own initiative, had left for the New World but that the wave of migration, from the Netherlands, in the fifties, could justifiably be called a wave, as thousands left their familiar environments to seek their fortune elsewhere.
And there were reasons for that.
Even while World War Two was still raging, representatives of the Netherlands had gone to London, to develop models for the future of the Netherlands.
It so happened that when Willem Drees became the leader, of the Dutch government, a document which he received was crucial to his long-term vision for the country.
This document predicted that, by the year 2000, there would be 16 million Netherlanders and that it would be unlikely that all those people could be offered, work, food and housing.
This seemed a very reasonable prediction at this time, just after the war, with the then current housing shortage and even shortage of essentials for living.
Two solutions were suggested. One concerned annexing a certain part of Germany, under the terms, agreed on, at the end of the war, and moving the German inhabitants east and moving in the Dutch.
The other option was a massive migration of 5% of qualified people to countries which wanted to take in migrants.
The annexed lands were returned to Germany and the propaganda encouraging migration began.
The Australian government was known to strive for the importing of Caucasian people, in line with the unstated white Australia Policy. Something which caused difficulties for Dutch citizens who wished to migrate from the then Dutch East Indies.
Both the Australian and the Dutch governments were keen to have those (Dutch) who came to Australia lose their cultural identity to an absurd degree. This would make the immigrants seem more acceptable to Australians and it would make taking the decision to leave the Netherlands seem more permanent.
Mr Reitsma suggested that the political circumstances after so many years changed. He himself, unfamiliar with the political circumstances of those years, believed the migrants who left the Netherlands to be pioneering heroes, who dared to exchange the dutch pettiness or small-mindedness for a difficult but free existence.
But, in Australia he had spoken to many who felt that they had simply been thrown out. This was particularly so for the Dutch-Indonesians, but in a totally different context.
Then, according to Mr Reitsma, a few years before he presented this talk, in the Netherlands the term inburgeren became in vogue. It can be translated as naturalising but settling in, fitting in, or even assimilating might all be closely associated.
It was discovered that the " sums " , done in the fifties, did not " add up " and a shortage of labour was made up for by first bringing in people from Spain and Italy and later, from northern Africa and Turkey.
Inburgeren involved a learning process which would lead to better understanding of the Dutch way of life, the norms and values, and an improved standing in the labour market.
Inburgeren was road, laid with good intentions, advice and subsidies, intended to lead to Dutch citizenship.
A way of avoiding ghetoism and social isolation and a way to encourage integration.
Mr Reitsma told the audience that when they had to become Australians, those concepts did not exist. They just had to behave as Australians and no-one will ever know how much it took, how much the homesickness hurt and how many children's tears were shed.
In those circumstances, most of the Dutch-Australian societies evolved.
Mr Reitsma believed that this was not because of nationalistic considerations, the Dutch only wanted to be a little bit overtly Dutch.
No. It was much more to do with sharing the experiences and a longing to express oneself in the way that you'd learnt to do.
It had to do with the inability to completely cut ties with the land of birth, often because of parents and other relatives and t often happened that groups formed of Australians with say, just touch of orange .
For that circumstance we had to, according to Mr Reitsma, thank the establishment of dozens of Dutch social and other clubs, including, in Melbourne the Erasmus Society and in Sydney the Dutch Australian Centre (as it was known as, when he presented this talk).
These were institutions which were established by people who realised how special the history of migration was and that it is worthwhile documenting this history for coming generations.
But also realising that a certain amount of Dutchness had entered Australian society and therefore it is worthwhile to maintain the cultural links with the Netherlands and to make this known to the general public, in addition to the descendants of the Dutch immigrants.
And in this connection, the Dutch churches need a mention, said Mr Reitsma.
He was convinced that they played a significant part in encouraging the acceptance of this new way of life.
Besides common experiences there was a feeling of solidarity, resulting in the establishment of building funds, provision for care of the aged and the raising of money for charity.
Sometimes existing intitutions were adapted to the needs of the immigrants, such as the establishment of the Queen Wiilhelmina Fund, which changed its focus from seafarers to migrants as target group, or the the society which Mr Reitsma was addressing which was established before the accent was put on the term: Dutch-Australians.
According to Mr Reitsma, in the sixties the validity of the political objectives behind the migration process ceased to be, in Australia as well as in the Netherlands.
The stream of people swapping countries came to an end.
Those who still came here (to Australia) tended to be highly trained professionals, who sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently settled.
They usually maintained their Dutch nationality and did not see themselves as fitting in with the aims and objectives of the Dutch Australian societies and institutions, established during, the wave.
In fact, they formed a separate group, non-aligned, although there have definitely been exceptions.
The change of political focus was also evident in the directions taken by the authorities.
Australia established the Special Broadcasting Service in recognition of the possibility that not everyone has the capacity to adapt unconditionally, to new circumstances but that it was a good idea to provide information regarding this via the old, cultural roots.
In the Netherlands the Ministry for Social Affairs shrank its migration service and eventually dissolved it. Also the funding for the migration processing. Migration was considered to be complete.
Meanwhile the Netherlands itself had become a country taking in immigrants.
The Dutch authorities' involvement lessening was made obvious by the scaling down of the consulates, in Australia.
Honorary consulates became the connection to the Netherlands, in Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and last of all, Melbourne.
Meanwhile, the turning of the tide, was also evident among the migrants' societies as well. Memship numbers fell. It became more difficult, according to Mr Reitsma, to find suitable committee members and it became obvious that the second generation was not jumping at the chance to fill the vacancies.
( I was an exception. Replaced my father, who had served for 12 years as chair of the Netherlands Society in Bankstown, to help it stay alive for a few more years. But it must be noted that the founders had always predicted that the needs would have been served after about 25 years. It just seemed a shame, at the time to stop. The society lived on for another three years, after my one year, at the helm.)
Mr Reitsma expressed his belief that the migration wave was a unique event, which gave the organisations that were established, a unique character. And, Mr Reitsma asserted, it had in the meantime, become evident, that, unfortunately there was / is no natural flow-on and purpose for future generations, to serve the purpose for which these institutions were established.
(As the founding members of the Bankstown Club, recognised in 1955!)
And so, Mr Reitsma put this question: What do we do with this heritage?
He pointed out that not every part of this heritage is of equal value, e.g., once there are three people left who know the rules of the Dutch card game: Klaverjassen, then there is no more chance of keeping it alive.
But he expressed concern for the well-being of the icons of the Dutch immigration experience which might not be understood, or valued, or respected by relevant authorities, unaware of the origins, of these icons.
Mr Reitsma believed (This talk was, remember, given in May 2001.) that luckily there were still committee members who could ensure that all would not be lost.
He suggested some choices (Very roughly translated, by me, as in the case of most of this.):
1. If we let events take their natural course, then, for a while longer all will be good (gezellig is a unique Dutch word, supposedly not translatable), until the final, fatal death (of this heritage). Whoever is still alive can worry but we have not worried about future generations.
2. We could select a few organisations and institutions, whose continuing existence we wish to preserve, by modernising and ensuring that they will attract younger generations, who may have different perceptions of what identity, management, enterprise and gezelligheid (e.g., company, socialising, entertainment, etc.) is all about, simply because they did not belong to the original Dutch Australian cohort.
However, making changes which are against one's beliefs or instincts and experiences are not always easy to bring about. Particularly if so much hard work went into establishing the organisation and its facilities.
3. Thirdly, Mr Reitsma said, we could call on that other group, the other Dutch clan, the expatriates and young immigrants, who to his delight often got on very well with second and third generation Dutch Australians, as their world were less far apart as waas sometimes assumed.
They could help to select the facilities and clubs which would also, in the future have a reason to be. They could advise regarding the necessary changes and aims and objectives, ways of going about the required tasks and composition of committees, in the hope that this would lead to a firm commitment of the next generation.
This option would require from the current committees the wisdom to see that advice not as criticism but for what they would really be, namely an ultimate confirmation of the unique and once-only appearance of the Dutch-Australian in the history of this continent.
Mr Reitsma concluded this talk with the invitation to a discussion, to, as he put it, save / rescue the valuable aspects of the extensive and proud heritage and give it a significant home /destination, and avid the risk of misunderstandings and possibly gather as many creative ideas as possible.
A discussion which he was willing to carry on until the chairperson closed the bar.
(Which proves that Mr Reitsma must have had a good sense of humour and hopefully a train ticket or a designated driver, with him.)
He thanked the Sydney Club members, for their attention.
There is no bar here, but please feel free to discuss!!!!
...
The content of my translation of what Mr Reitsma put to the club's members is 97% Mr Reitsma's.
I know I am not alone, in hoping that this speech will not remain filed away, unseen.
I believe it is still very relevant in ou current situation.
Jo(op) Mul(holland).
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Klaas Woldring on October 28, 2008 at 3:12pm -
Yes, suitable but can you select bits that are particularly suitable for our purpose?
Klaas
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Jo on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Dutch-Australians All to add comments!
Join this Ning Network