Racism and segregation are not racism and segregation when practised by Dutch people because Dutch people are special. That's what the dude from Volkskrant was trying to say. Seriously, the number of Dutch people who've told me that I can't comment on Dutch national issues while they can comment on my country's issues is more than I can remember.

i was nationalised dutch in curacao teh netherlands antilles an colonized island uptil now by the duth mayority people there are black 85% go see how the dutch is treating them and how they are inpooring these islands dutch are the basterd childe of the nazie german they are the same it did happen that blood is ticking....reminder they use to through life prisoners from helicopter when they occupied indonisia.....oioohh yeaahhh they are dutch they do what they want
we call them makamba in curacao the worst people on earth they show you that they are superior.....
read teh history of the ducth..what they are doing now it just came to life

I can imagine people such as Dr. Martin Luther King would have a different view on this, well, arrangement than Mr. Gerrits. But then again, liberals/the center left of course cannot become guilty of racism, can they? ;)

I wonder that in all the matter, everybody refers the two entrances, as one door for the blacks and another for the whites. But i think is more correct to say that is a door for the muslims, as the the mayority of the inmigrants in holland are, as the article established.
"But it is equally clear that the two cultures - based on religion/philosophy, actually, with skin tendencies being coincedental - are unable to blend together, and probably not even coexist peacefully for very long."
I agree with that, mainly with the last part of the comment, the clash is sure.

Bob Doney wrote:

Fascinating fact that emerged: although the Japanese-Americans have retained great community solidarity and made conscious efforts to keep cultural traditions, 50% of the younger generation now marry non-Japanese. What this proves I've no idea, but it's evidence for something or other!

It is evidence (and hardly the only evidence) in favor of the proposition that the U.S. is on the road to becoming something quite different from "non-discriminatory" or "multicultural": a post-tribal society, a society where people simply aren't much concerned about tribal identities when they marry, trade and otherwise engage in the daily business of life. Living in the middle of it in more ways than one, I find it a fascinating historical experiment.

Bob,

I refer you to the real Enlightenment. It was called the Reformation and pulled the whole of the West up by its bootstraps as rain on the just and the unjust: the declaration that God IS His Word and that one must be born again as real, literal new creation in Jesus Christ on this earth in this present flesh. Some call it Calvinism.

Then along came the 'counter'-Reformation, sometimes called the Inquisiton; anti-Christ through the free willers/Papists/Romanists made the same sense to each other they always had only they awarded each other degrees to say it and added a bit of ceremony to carry it off as 'offical'. Sort of like today. That the 'Enlightenment' you're speaking? The same free will lie that has brought such nifty 'intellectual goods' as moral-depravity-as-public-policy: sodomy and abortion?

Revelation 22:16-21 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

OK, Bob, the word "proves"/"proving" is wrong. it had to be "shows"/"showing."
I do not see culture as a racial or ethnic thing. The members of the younger generation of the Japanese-Americans share the same culture today as the Anglo-Americans, which is why they intermarry.
I do not know about immigrants in Britain, but in the Netherlands and Belgium many Moroccans and Turks of the second generation marry someone from the country their parents came from. What does this show? That there has not been a cultural assimilation.

'Whiteness'/'White Supremacy' is all that is left as an answer to the difference between Western Civilization and the rest of the world when true Christianity is denied. After one is deceived there is no new creation in Jesus Christ irrespective of flesh, all that is left is the flesh. The flesh is the only 'common sense' of both minorities and majorities of fallen man.

May I assume that you haven't given a lot of time to studying the Enlightenment in 18th Century Europe? Much of their thinking seems to have passed you by. Some of their ideas were quite cool.

Bob Doney

The story proves that white parents -- even in the Netherlands -- prefer to send their children to white schools, thereby proving that most people do not like multiculturalism and prefer segregation.

Does it? Your understanding of the word "proof" must be different to what I was taught at skool.

By the way, there was a very interesting programme on the telly last night about the Japanese community in the USA. It told the story of the internment of the Japanese-Americans in the 2WW. Fascinating fact that emerged: although the Japanese-Americans have retained great community solidarity and made conscious efforts to keep cultural traditions, 50% of the younger generation now marry non-Japanese. What this proves I've no idea, but it's evidence for something or other!

Bob Doney

Granted, among a population of those deceived they have free will:

They fear that at the school, which has predominantly immigrant pupils, their children will get poorer education or will not feel at home.

What exactly do you call that? If anyone in the U.S. had said that the rest of the world would cry "Racism!" --the first among them the Dutch.

In the U.S., the 'choices' of the parents was pre-empted by the government to force mixed race busing and schools and every other walk of life they can interfere in. The government cared nothing for the 'choices' of the majority parents while promoting 'more choice' as the very 'reason' for getting an education. Any other than going along with what the minorities wanted was (and to a large extent still is) labeled 'racism'.

Now the author says it isn't racism in The Netherlands-- because the parents 'choices' made the government forcing ineffective. The Dutch themselves have said 'Racism' is only a matter of legality and not 'moral principle'.

Various plans of the authorities to create as many mixed and non-segregated schools as possible have had little effect. Here you could see the whiter and the blacker entrances at one glance. No racism, but the consequence of a policy that tries to mix schools, but fails because in the end the parents make their own decisions

Funny how it is always 'complicated' when those who are used by anti-Christ to throw accusations at others see themselves doing the very same thing that they gleefully accused others of being immoral to do.

Private school on one floor, public on another somehow negates the 'racism'? Merely because two different schools share the same building? The thing the two schools do is high-light the difference.

But in the U.S. , those parents who took their children out of public schools (who could afford to do so) because of the forcing of lower academic standards on the public school system to supposedly accomidate the 'culture' and 'background' of the minorities are to this hour labeled as 'racist' by anti-Christ through those minorities and the world.

Now we have a liberal journalist from liberal Netherlands who doesn't label the parents who pulled their children out of the public school racists because ...it was their 'choice'?

As anti-Christ through any black 'leader' of the Left would say in the U.S.: "Why did they make those choices? THAT'S the racism."

And if mere 'choice' negates the charge of racism, then there is no such thing as racism. (and because there is no free will in reality, there is indeed no such thing as racism. But those deceived free will exists have no other speech but to cry 'racism' merely to prop up the lie of 'choice'.)Very plainly, 'racism' can only exist, even a s a deception amongst a population of those deceived they have free will and even then the charge is a hypocritical phantom when sent against any ..other than oneself.

The Dutch probably voted to lower academic standards for immigrants due to 'cultural dis-advantages' of immigrants and now are taking their children out of the very system they voted to mandate in a moment of what they still consider high-brow principle.

So the Dutch now pay taxes to fund an educational system of lower standards (lower standards than they know is mandated simply to keep their own lie of what civilization is on track.. to have replacements for positions within the society for those that retire or die or change jobs (those other people 'doing choice'...)) than they are willing to teach their own children: they are knowingly raising a sub-class within their own country at their own expense that cannot compete on a world wide basis among those deceived they have free will and can do nothing but resent them for it.

Wait a minute.

That sounds like the U.S.

-----------

When you think to deceive and accuse the other person for gain, it always comes back on you whether you are a minority or a majority. The Dutch, according to their own acid test they gleefully threw on all they could, are racists: they 'genuinely made' their 'choices' based on the 'truth' that there must be something about 'whiteness' that built western civilization as distinct from third world countries. After all, those 'ideas' that built civilization came from somewhere and they have denied Christ as being the only Word, Way, Life and Truth.

'Whiteness'/'White Supremacy' is all that is left as an answer to the difference between Western Civilization and the rest of the world when true Christianity is denied. After one is deceived there is no new creation in Jesus Christ irrespective of flesh, all that is left is the flesh. The flesh is the only 'common sense' of both minorities and majorities of fallen man.

That's not complicated at all.

Ephesians 2:1-6 and *you*, being dead in your offences and sins-- in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience: among whom *we* also all once had our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, doing what the flesh and the thoughts willed to do, and were children, by nature, of wrath, even as the rest: but God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love wherewith he loved us, (we too being dead in offences,) has quickened us with the Christ, (ye are saved by grace,) and has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus,

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Multiculturalism is simply Marxism. Soviet Marxism dealt with class equality (though not really), while our Multi-culti deals with racial equality (though not really). It is as successful as was Soviet Marxism, thank God. I am happy to see the Dutch not succumb to this fallacy despite their liberal proclivities. I am dismayed that is has to be in a hushed and "wink wink" type of way they reject it though.

Multiculturalism. What wonderful and abstract idea. Great for believing in but it's hell on your kid's education and welfare.

I think Paul's point is that, with the "superior" Dutch attitudes towards race and culture, Nederlanders shouldn't need a separate door for their children and should embrace the opportunity to put their multiculturalist ideas into practice.

His reply is indeed convincing that there is no policy of deliberate segregation based on skin color.

But it is equally clear that the two cultures - based on religion/philosophy, actually, with skin tendencies being coincedental - are unable to blend together, and probably not even coexist peacefully for very long.

According to Webster segregation is either the act of segregating or the state of being segregated. What happened in South Africa/America was an active segregation policy by the state/establishment. Clearly corresponding to the first definition of segregation.

While what's happening in the Netherlands (and in most of the European countries) is a state of segregation (second definition) for various reasons but certainly not because of an active policy.

It makes all the difference for the moral judgement of the situation and I thus fail to see the relevancy of apartheid regarding this schooling issue.

In other news, PC arrogance reaching new levels.
If you link to my PC article on a possibly non-PC website, or write about my topic in any possible non-PC way, you are abusing and shall remove that information.

(Thank you for Brussels Journal, it is always a fascinating read with excellent content).
While it is true that having 2 entrances is a normal state when there are 2 schools, it is nonetheless interesting that white and immigrant kids from the same neighborhoods are attending different schools.
If a society was racially harmonious, would you not expect that (especially) young children would play and learn together without regard to race, ethnicity, religious creed?
Clearly, we Americans do not have a proper handle on "multiculturism". :) We intuitively feel the society is more healthy if people are overall well integrated. In the Euro nations the balance seems more in favor of segregating groups from each other.

I don't really see this as an egregious situation

The story proves that white parents -- even in the Netherlands -- prefer to send their children to white schools, thereby proving that most people do not like multiculturalism and prefer segregation. Is this wrong? According to some Dutch authorities and media it is.

If the school forces non-white montessori students through the entrance to the other school then I'm calling racism but otherwise, this is looking less and less like something sinister. If there are no non-white students in the montessori, it could easily look like something it isn't.

That's not to say that it wouldn't cause an outrage in the US. It would, and the schools would cave in and start making everyone enter through the same door but after reading all of the follow-ups to this article I don't really see this as an egregious situation.

We do not have his article on our site, we just linked to it:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/1137477450091.html
As Mr Gerrits says in his letter: this is a situation where at one glance one can see a school entrance for white children and one for black children. In our book that is called segregation -- as could be seen in South Africa in the 1980s and the American South in the 1960s. Apparently, the Dutch do not consider it segregation because the schools have different names and the black school lets out a floor to the white school.

I insist that you remove the articles in this format or remedy them.

Does he mean by this that you should remove or "remedy" the article you wrote? Or did you have his article somewhere on the site?

Perhaps in Holland, the definition of racism is not as broad as the one we use here in the US.