Ask a Dutchman!

[tokala]

What is the public perception of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and the assorted projected rise of the ocean levels in the Netherlands?
I could imagine that the potential costs of hardening the dikes against that rise might drive the debate more towards the "scientific consensus" or even the "alarmist" stance.
Does the Royal Dutch Shell play a significant role in the debate?
On a related note, how much is invested in the maintenance of the dikes and the Deltawerken each year?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I think it might get a sentence or two in some in high school text books (when the war is usually discussed) but it still gets basically no real time. I don't ever remember writing about it or seeing it come up in need-to-know curriculum, even for the American history AP testing. On the other hand, things like the Kent State Shootings get a lot of coverage.

Probably because My Lai was an isolated incident. It's importance was mainly galvanizing the anti-war movement and being a major news talking point. In that context it's importance can be pretty much summed up in a couple of sentences.

Going into detail about the incident itself it in a basic high school US history course would be a little redundant. I remember reading about it and seeing graphic pictures in my "WWII to Present" class.

 

[Agent327]

What is the public perception of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, and the assorted projected rise of the ocean levels in the Netherlands?
I could imagine that the potential costs of hardening the dikes against that rise might drive the debate more towards the "scientific consensus" or even the "alarmist" stance.
Does the Royal Dutch Shell play a significant role in the debate?
On a related note, how much is invested in the maintenance of the dikes and the Deltawerken each year?

I´m a bit at a loss at the first question. From media coverage I´m inclined to say it´s mostly a specialists´ debate. Popular reactions range from concerned to hilarious. AFAIK Shell doesn´t really play a part in this debate; it´s more concerned with current and future energy reserves.

Due to climate change and relative sea-level rise, the dikes will eventually have to be made higher and wider. This is a long term uphill battle against the sea. The needed level of flood protection and the resulting costs are a recurring subject of debate. Currently, reinforcement of the dike revetments along the Oosterschelde and Westerschelde is underway. The revetments have proven to be insufficient and need to be replaced. This work started in 1996 and should be finished in 2015. In that period the Ministry of Public Works and Water Management in cooperation with the waterboards will have reinforced over 400 km of dikes.[1]
In September 2008, the Delta commission presided by Dutch politician Cees Veerman advised in a report that the Netherlands would need a massive new building program to strengthen the country's water defenses against the anticipated effects of global warming for the next 190 years. This commission was created in September 2007 after the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans prompted reflection and preparations. Those included drawing up worst-case scenarios for evacuations. The plans included more than €100 billion, or $144 billion, in new spending through the year 2100 for measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.
The commission said the country must plan for a rise in the North Sea of 1.3 meters by 2100 and 4 meters by 2200.[2]

A quick internet survey showed nothing regarding maintenance costs; I did find the total build costs of the Delta Works, amounting to 6 million euro. Yearly maintenance costs for all dikes is estimated at 1.7 billion euro for 2012.

 

[christos200]

What do the dutch think about the German plan to have a governor in Greece?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What conflicts are your military involved in? What do the people think of them?

 

[Agent327]

Dutch military were last involved in ISAF (Afghanistan), as well as Ocean Shield and Atalanta (against piracy off the Somalian coast). The first has, after much debate, been converted into a police mission, involvement in the second operations ended June 2011. Apart from this, Dutch fighter planes were part of the NATO blockade against Ghaddafis regime - during which an unarmed rescue team managed to get itself caught by Ghaddafi supporters at Benghazi... That caused a bit of a stir. I´d say the last were more popular than the first, as there is concern whether NATO involvement in Afghanistan will actually have a positive effect on the country. (And then there was the involvement in Bosnia, where an unsupported and underarmed contingent was unable to stop Muslims from Sarajevo - a ´safe area´- from being executed. Although the personnel involved were officially cleared afterwards, the whole affair left un unsavoury aftertaste.)

What do the dutch think about the German plan to have a governor in Greece?

A governor? What kind of governor? (Sorry, first I heard of this.)

 

[anandus]

What conflicts are your military involved in? What do the people think of them?

Technically we are still at war with Portugal, I believe

But as far as I know the Netherlands isn't involved in any 'real' conflicts.

The Netherlands at the moment has deployed 636 people worldwide, for UN-, EU-, or NATO-missions.
Most are training-missions or logistics support (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Burundi, Kenia, Congo, Darfur, Gaza/Israël)

And there's also a navy detachment of a few ships patrolling around Somalia.

(Dutch source)

 

[Agent327]

Aha, more detailed information.

Technically we are still at war with Portugal, I believe

That´s an interesting point of view... (I can understand where that comes from, but I don´t think it´s correct, actually.)

 

[anandus]

That´s an interesting point of view... (I can understand where that comes from, but I don´t think it´s correct, actually.)

Yeah, it's a war for which there never was a peace treaty signed, which means that those countries formally are still at war. Since 1567. Apparently.

(Dutch Wikipedia, last sentence).

 

[mayor]

Well I can´t speak for others, and being interested in history from early on, I am not ignorant about the negative aspects of Dutch colonial history. The slave trade definitely was on my high school curriculum (it was a major part of the Dutch West India Co.´s trade).

Same here and slave trade was indeed mentioned but the roll the Dutch wasn't very specific...
The fact that Dutch slave traders were among the longest traders active was left in the dark for the most part for instance.

I can´t say that I share this experience. But we had a fairly good history teacher. Also, I don´t quite see how you can miss out on those black pages without misrepresenting actual history. The slave trade, South Africa, Indonesia: these are major part of Dutch colonial and post-colonial history.

The Dutch East Indies were part of my final exam curriculum. I remember I was thoroughly disappointed in the textbook. Luckily I had a teacher who wasn't afraid to go beyond the textbook to "enlighten" us on the darker sides of Dutch history

What concerns me more is that knowledge of (Dutch) history seems to declining rather than increasing among the general population. On the other hand, history teaching has improved since the discipline was first started in the 19th century, when it was very biased indeed.

I agree on this. Last time I was with friends we had a conversation and a few parts of history came up. Now I have an larger than average interest in history but my friends weren't known with some things I think should be part of general education...

 

[bombshoo]

Probably because My Lai was an isolated incident. It's importance was mainly galvanizing the anti-war movement and being a major news talking point. In that context it's importance can be pretty much summed up in a couple of sentences.

Going into detail about the incident itself it in a basic high school US history course would be a little redundant. I remember reading about it and seeing graphic pictures in my "WWII to Present" class.

Yeah, I don't want to get too off topic, but I pretty much agree that it doesn't need much more. I was mostly just trying to draw a comparison to the Rawagede Massacre in terms of how it is taught, if only to help my own understanding.

 

[Agent327]

Yeah, it's a war for which there never was a peace treaty signed, which means that those countries formally are still at war. Since 1567. Apparently.

Okay, I assumed to were referring to this:

Portugal's independence was interrupted between 1580 and 1640. [...] Although Portugal did not lose its formal independence, it was governed by the same monarch who governed Spain, briefly forming a union of kingdoms, as a personal union. The joining of the two crowns deprived Portugal of a separate foreign policy, and led to the involvement in the Eighty Years' War being fought in Europe at the time between Spain and the Netherlands.

but now I´m at a bit of a loss. In 1567 the Netherlands did not yet exist.

 

[anandus]

I'm more worried about a lack of sources, especially when you take in account, for instance, the Peace of Den Hague.

Maybe somebody messing with Wikipedia?

 

[mayor]

Okay, I assumed to were referring to this:

Portugal's independence was interrupted between 1580 and 1640. [...] Although Portugal did not lose its formal independence, it was governed by the same monarch who governed Spain, briefly forming a union of kingdoms, as a personal union. The joining of the two crowns deprived Portugal of a separate foreign policy, and led to the involvement in the Eighty Years' War being fought in Europe at the time between Spain and the Netherlands.

but now I´m at a bit of a loss. In 1567 the Netherlands did not yet exist.

It could be that this is the conflict that is refered to.... with the Beeldenstorm in 1566 and the Eighty years war starting in 1568... 1567 could be a compromis
IDK just crasping straws here to look for an explanation

 

[Agent327]

Ummm, OK, so what conflict were you referring to then?

I'm more worried about a lack of sources, especially when you take in account, for instance, the Peace of Den Hague.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Maybe somebody messing with Wikipedia?

How do you mean?

 

[anandus]

How do you mean?

Well, maybe somebody just put it in there, 'for fun'?
Everybody can edit Wikipedia.
(But let's not stray to far offtopic.)

 

[aronnax]

I feel that, of all the formerly colonised nations of South East Asia, Indonesia has retained the least amount of legacy from it's former colonial masters, the Dutch.

For example, Westminster Parliament, Common Law and English language has been retained in Malaysia and Singapore, American Political systems in the Philippines and English as well as Spanish colonial culture and mixing, French Colonial buildings dot Hanoi and Ho Chin Minh City and East Timor's cultures and languages are a mix of the indigenous people and Portuguese.
To me, the same cannot be said the said for the Netherlands and Indonesia. You could walk through Jakarta and never realised that this was once a Dutch Colony.

Do you think this view is true and if so, why is like that?

 

[Lillefix]

To me, the same cannot be said the said for the Netherlands and Indonesia. You could walk through Jakarta and never realised that this was once a Dutch Colony.

Do you think this view is true and if so, why is like that?

If you're sincerely interested, this is talked a bit about in Empire of the word.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Wor...8716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328004011&sr=8-1

It's specifically about language, but I think it translates into other things as well. Basically the Dutch couldn't care less about spreading their culture. They just wanted to trade.

 

[anandus]

Do you think this view is true and if so, why is like that?

It might be because the Dutch, like the Portuguese, mostly had a purely mercantile empire, where the Spanish, French, British, etc. had a 'true' empire.

 

[christos200]

Can you tell me about the Netherlands in WW2?