Bekasi Bigots

Feb 21st, 2010, in Opinion, by

Sectarian mapping of cities to prevent conflict, as another church, in Bekasi, is closed.


BEKASI BIGOTS RIDING HIGH

Having lived in Bekasi, West Java some years ago, the Jakarta Post article about ‘religious mapping‘ holds interest. The very idea that you need to map an area to provide for peaceful sectarian co-existence, never mind integration, sums up what is wrong with Indonesia. It can be better summarised in two words: Muslim clerics, as in this story of protests against the construction of a Protestant church in Bekasi recently:

Rusli, 38, a moderate Muslim, was in a quandary when local clerics recently asked him and other residents to sign a petition against the building of the Batak Christian Protestant Church (Filadelfia Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (HKBP)) church in their neighborhood in Jejalen Jaya.

The clerics said that if we didn’t sign, they wouldn’t recite prayers at our funerals. I insisted on not signing it, but most of my neighbors were cowed by the threat.

With local clerics still playing a pivotal leadership role in rural parts of Bekasi, people in the Muslim-majority region are easily dragged into conflicts sparked by religious tensions. The spat between the HKBP and the Jejalen Jaya residents only escalated once Muslim clerics in the subdistrict began inciting opposition to the construction of the church.

All Muslim clerics in this subdistrict have agreed the construction of the church must desist immediately

says protest leader Nesan.

So what’s their problem? Murhali, Bekasi FPI leader said on TVone on Sunday that there were 6 churches in the area.

At night, their singing disturbs the locals’ sleep

They can hardly be serious in saying that church-bells and hymn-singing ‘disturb’ Muslim residents, since their own mosques emit cacaphonous ululations again and again every day, not least when normal folk are abed and asleep.

Bekasi ’45 Islamic University sociologist Andi Sopandi points out such faith-fomented conflicts are to be expected. Such disputes, he says, occur frequently in developing rural or suburban areas across the country, where the influx of newcomers with a more diverse background has grated on traditionally more homogeneous communities.

Locals and newcomers get along well only if they share similar basic values, and for most Indonesians, that would be religion

says Andi, who advised former vice president Jusuf Kalla during the latter’s mediation to end the deadly inter-religious clashes in Poso, Central Sulawesi. Given the situation, he goes on, the establishment of an interfaith communication forum alone is never enough.

True enough, Andi, but what is to be done?

Andi believes it is paramount for all regional administrations in the country, including in Bekasi, to produce a map, updated each year, that shows the spread of religious clusters in the area.

The map shouldn’t just list the populations of each religion, but should also point out their homes and nearest houses of worship. Using such a map, the local administration can work with its Interfaith Communication Forum to allow for houses of worship to be established where the population of any particular religious group is high.

It might, one would think, be easier just to let people build a church, or temple, or mosque, subject to parking needs etc., and allow for freedom of religion to proceed, but not here. The ignorant savages who hold court in the mosques direct their flock to hound anybody who doesn’t share their beliefs.

Why, we have to ask again? And it does seem to come back to the paranoid fear among these clerics that their flock will jump ship. Repeatedly, we hear the horrified fanatics speaking of ‘conversion’. Sometimes they use the term ‘Christianisation‘ of areas, as if there’s some Rome-directed plot to flood Bekasi with Catholics or perhaps American evangelists are master-minding wholesale Protestant indoctrination of the Bekasi masses. No wonder Islamic spokesmen often prescribe the death penalty for anyone who converts out.

Are rank-and-file Muslims truly so weak in their faith that only such barbaric threats keep them bending the knee to bearded ignoramuses? I doubt it. Most people need a pretty heavy reason to change the religion they were born into.

The menace of proselytisation was also the excuse in last week’s report from Taman Galaxy, which is a nice little housing estate there where I occasionally did some work about seven years back. Everybody seemed civil enough, no signs of irrationality, at least no more than usual. But this year, we have 16 Islamist outfits up in arms because Galilea Church has a little Sunday fair.

One Murhali said that there were allegations that the church was carrying out a mission to convert residents.

We received reports that church officials often held a charity bazaar for locals but they were asked to say that Jesus is their God. I think it’s a violation.

Sounds unlikely, but what the heck, even if they were asked, they can ‘just say no’, nobody forced them to go there, and given Islam’s record of forcible conversion, a charity bazaar is pea-nuts.

I’m sure Andi Sopandi is a well-meaning man, but maps will only show that non-Muslims are in a minority just about everywhere in Bekasi and in Jakarta. The kind of bigoted clerics we’re talking about here don’t care at all if it’s 2% or 20% – backed up by the kind of Islamist zealots who run the political show in Bekasi, they want to stamp out any alternative source of spiritual guidance that might seem preferable to their own unpleasant brand.


196 Comments on “Bekasi Bigots”

  1. Ross says:

    Timdog, your comments have successfully let us all go off on a different tangent yet again, but I had hoped you might oblige, as this is a very big issue for both Indonesia and ourselves as Westerners.

    Illegals are ipso facto queue–jumpers. Most of the Anglo-Saxon countries (and other places like Holland, Sweden and France) have allowed in far too many legal immigrants, but given that they have democratically approved procedures for immigration, it is manifestly unfair for thousands of ‘asylum-seekers’ to get past those who have applied for and wait patiently for, admission under the proper rules.

    In cases like Afghanistan, and Iraq, it is moreover quite offensive that fit and able citizens of those countries are sneaking into Aussie and the UK ( to Oz via Indonesia, which would be a culturally and religiously more appropriate destination if they just wanted to migrate to ‘safety’) while young Aussie and Brit servicemen are over there at horrendous risk, fighting to make those countries safer and better for Afghans and Iraqis.
    Sending one’s women and kids out of harm’s way is one thing, but running out on your country when it’s in dire straits is another.

    There is also the disturbing aspect of terrorist infiltration. I believe that 25% of those brought in for questioning after a recent UK terr episode were ‘asylum-seekers,’ and it diesn’t surprise me. Britain certainly has opened its doors to Islamofascists (incredibly, Britain took in a Taliban afraid of the government we are supporting!) and Communists. Both these types are unwelcome guests in anyone’s home, of which the UK (and Australia) already has more than enough.

    There is much to add to these opening gambits, but I’ll let the pack get into it as I need to get to work.

  2. ET says:

    @ madrotter

    for those of you that read this and think, what kind of country is indonesia, what kind of people do all this, indonesia is a beautiful country, the people are the sweetest people in the world i’m sure this kinda stuff is happening all over the globe, there’s bad apples everywhere…

    Sure, it happens all over the world. However what is worrying is the regularity incidents like this happen here and the ease the lowlifes get away with it. Makes one wonder who’s the big brother that protects this scum.
    Things don’t seem to have changed too much after G30S.

  3. BrotherMouzone says:

    @ Ross

    Where to start?

    it is manifestly unfair for thousands of ‘asylum-seekers’ to get past those who have applied for and wait patiently for, admission under the proper rules.

    Yes, they should just jolly well wait in their country until we can get around to them. And if they are killed in the meanwhile, then; bonus! Less brown folk in the UK!

    In cases like Afghanistan, and Iraq, it is moreover quite offensive that fit and able citizens of those countries are sneaking into Aussie and the UK

    I know – the cheeky buggers – it’s almost as if they think we are in some way responsible for the wars in their countries… the tools….

    Indonesia, which would be a culturally and religiously more appropriate destination if they just wanted to migrate to ’safety

    Totally agree…. oh, but hang on, if they are all secret terrorists then they will probably tip the balance here in Indonesia towards fundamentalism and there will be even more church closures in Bekasi. (On topic! What is my prize?)

    but running out on your country when it’s in dire straits is another.

    Yeah… the big nonces… they should just stay and live with constant danger to their life. Unarmed and unprotected in countries where suicide bombings and revenge killings are a daily occurrence.

    I mean, that’s what you would do in their situation, right?

  4. Ross says:

    Very odd views, Brother.

    First, we did not cause those wars. Saddam and the Taliban made them necessary.

    Second, able-bodied Afghans should be joining up to help the Allies fight the Taliban.

    Third, Indonesia is not very willing to accept asylum-seekers, nor should they be. And why should we? if they simply wanted shelter, they’d go somewhere nearer, but they know Australia, at present, is a soft target.

    Fourth, these asylum-seekers, notably Algerians in Britain and Tamils in Oz, are often either terrorists or sympathise with the terrorist groups back home- we should not be affording them sanctuary.

  5. Oigal says:

    Assmad,
    Let me know when you have something to offer besides twisting what someone else has to say. Shallow sport Shallow!

  6. BrotherMouzone says:

    @Ross

    The anti-immigration immigrant, fantastic!

    First, we did not cause those wars. Saddam and the Taliban made them necessary.

    Keep repeating that ad nauseum and eventually you’ll get your own show on Fox.

    Second, able-bodied Afghans should be joining up to help the Allies fight the Taliban

    Sure… join the occupying force, risk the lives of all their loved ones, what’s not to like? I’m guessing that you would join an occupying force if they invaded your country, right Ross?

    Third, Indonesia is not very willing to accept asylum-seekers, nor should they be. And why should we? if they simply wanted shelter, they’d go somewhere nearer, but they know Australia, at present, is a soft target.

    It’s not quite that simple. They have a right to live, work, make money, and make something of themselves (especially after we have made such a glorious mess of their countries). It would be very difficult to do so in developing countries. Anyway, I wouldn’t have thought you would be so keen on more islamofascist forinners here in Indonesia…

    Fourth, these asylum-seekers, notably Algerians in Britain and Tamils in Oz, are often either terrorists or sympathise with the terrorist groups back home- we should not be affording them sanctuary.

    If “often” means “almost never” or “to a statistically insignificant degree” then you are bang on the money.

    Having said all that, your posts are often thought-provoking.

  7. Oigal says:

    I know – the cheeky buggers – it’s almost as if they think we are in some way responsible for the wars in their countries… the tools….

    Of course, they could wait for the Oil Rich Brothers to pop in and provide some assistance or just live the happy life just like the Kurds…oops wait..

    Then again life was so much better under the Tailban, no schools for women, pop down to watch a beheading in the sports areana or perhaps blow up some thousands of year old statues (wonder where that figures on the I am offended by cartoons scale)

    Yes, they should just jolly well wait in their country until we can get around to them. And if they are killed in the meanwhile, then; bonus! Less brown folk in the UK!

    That’s good point but I have never been able to understand why they had to come so far. Does that mean all that talk of we are all brothers under our God is just so much ..well talk..

    Unarmed and unprotected in countries where suicide bombings and revenge killings are a daily occurrence.

    And these would be done by tourist cartoonists from the evil west one assumes?

  8. ET says:

    Having said all that, your posts are often thought-provoking.

    So are yours.

  9. Ross says:

    Anti-immigrant immigrant?
    Going a bit far…I like living here, but have no intention of becoming an Indonesian citizen, nor of using Indonesia’s wonderful welfare state benefits. I scrupulously avoid engaging in this country’s politics -comment of course but do not join demos etc.

    Certainly there are several changes i would like to see, in terms of erdaicating corruption and opening up religious freedoms, but that is for the electorate ultimately to determine.

    Similarly, I would hope that Australia acts to preserve itself from undesirable immigration, but that’s up to the Aussies. Pity they were not given a referendum when Fraser and co. imposed multi-cult policies.

    Occupying forces? I understood that both Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s governments were elected in imperfect but reasonably open elections, which those peoples had not had for years until the good guys, us, gave them that opportunity.

    Would I join the ‘occupying forces’ in my country? If I were in Holland in 1945 and saw the Allies marching in, yes, I’d have joined them.

  10. BrotherMouzone says:

    @Ross

    Going a bit far…I like living here, but have no intention of becoming an Indonesian citizen, nor of using Indonesia’s wonderful welfare state benefits. I scrupulously avoid engaging in this country’s politics -comment of course but do not join demos etc.

    It’s telling that your qualifications for being an immigrant include 1. Using state benefits and 2. Being involved in demos.

    An immigrant is somebody who settles in a land other than the one they were born in… that certainly makes me an immigrant… Were you born here? No. Are you settled here? Yes. So you are an immigrant.

    An anti-immigration immigrant.

  11. Ross says:

    No, it’s telling you, Brother, that I don’t consider myself a national of the country I am living in. They are entitled to engage in political activity and enjoy government benefits. I am, like the Turks in Germany, a ‘guest-worker.’ No vote, no social security. An immigrant intends to become Indonesian – if he/she migrates to indonesia.

    As should be the case with any foreigners who move to my country. If they apply for citizenship and pass the necessary tests, that’s a different matter.
    BTW, are you an immigrant? By either your standard or mine?l

  12. Odinius says:

    Wow, we’re off topic.

    What was the question again?

  13. Ross says:

    Having initiated the thread, it’s been fun to watch it go every which way but ahead.
    Oigal got ambushed by Achmad and everything went hay-wire.
    But it’s too late at night to bring it back. I had promised a post on the changed status of women since the 1950s. but they will need to wait. Sorry about that!

  14. BrotherMouzone says:

    BTW, are you an immigrant? By either your standard or mine?

    Let’s try the dictionary standard. I;

    a) was not born here
    b) am settled here

    So I am an immigrant. What’s in a word? My parents were immigrants too, not to Indonesia mind. They came to the UK and worked, paid taxes, and thrived. Just like most immigrants would do given half a chance…

  15. Ross says:

    Some, Brother. Only some.
    As you say, what’s in a word. I see myself as a guest-worker, which to some may be more of a pejorative than immigrant.
    My ancestors were immigrants, to the Old COmonwealth, and when they reached their destinations there were no honey-pots, no welfare systems, so they had to work like…honkies.
    unfortunately, those who arrive in that proud dominion nowadays get it handed to them on a plate, and even expect to be allowed to persevere with the primitive customs they should have left behind. The same goes for the Mother Country, where polygamic wives can get you extra state hand-outs.
    Madness!

  16. venna says:

    had promised a post on the changed status of women since the 1950s. but they will need to wait.
    __________

    I’ll wait this, Ross.

  17. Ross says:

    Good evening, Venna. I’m not given to saying no to ladies, so I’ll kick off briefly and let the show get on the road again.
    The original dispute between Oigal and me was whether life in general was better in the 1950s, which I do think it was.
    With specific reference to women, let’s consider what we eman by better.
    In terms of medical advances and material prosperity, then almost everybody is better off, in his country and in mine, but Indoesia is arguably quite different.
    I was thinking more in terms of contentment. Are for example Aussie or North American or British women trluy happier now that they’ve been liberated?

    I’ve made the point before that young ladies who are now blissfully revelling in the stress of executive responsibility or shouldering the hard graft in factories may not necessarily be infintiely more pleased with their lot than their grannies, who made their men’s sandwiches and sent their men off to work to savour such stress and strain, whiler the ladies stayed home and looked after the kids, washed the clothes and dishes and went shopping.

    Some may say that such a role is not fulfilling, but is this a revelation stumbled on by women in the 1960s or is it the result of indoctrination by ghastly Germaine Greer types?

    Certainly the proud housewives I recall from my boyhood showed no shame in doing their domestic chores and took great satisfaction from doing them well.

    Maggie3 Thatcher was in my view one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, and even those who disagree with my assessment must admit that a humble grocer’s daughter, by dint of hard work with ambition, could avoid housewifery and rise high.
    Women who had aspirations did get there, not always, but then men didn’t always reach the pinnacles they aimed for.
    More men than women get to the top, true. But to my way of thinking, it’s simply that more men nurture such ambitions, not that they are uniquely qualified to achieve them.

    Anyway, I’m editing my latest novel, so must leave you to ponder these random thoughts.
    tND

  18. Odinius says:

    Ross said:

    My ancestors were immigrants, to the Old COmonwealth, and when they reached their destinations there were no honey-pots, no welfare systems, so they had to work like…honkies

    Going to ignore the ‘honkies’ bit.

    I will say that I agree that too generous welfare systems can help institutionalize joblessness in certain populations. But I’d like to point out that this is not an immigration-specific phenomenon. If you look at failed British cities like Bradford, you see this is a problem that crosses ethnic, racial or religious lines.

    It’s also only one small part of the problem, when there is one. Strict assimilationism breeds discontent, while strict multiculturalism reifies separateness. Both are wrongheaded in the sense that they look at social groups as the building blocks of society, not individuals.

    In the US, several hundred years of tortured negotiations and failures with regards to immigration have produced something of a decent system, where immigrants are forced to integrate or face a harsh reality, but where everyone not only tolerates the cultures you bring to the table, but where you are expected to celebrate them. AND to share them.

  19. Ross says:

    Ya, Odinius, America’s melting-pot system has, or had, a lot to recommend it, but appears to be breaking down on the rock of Latino immigration, because too many of those immigrants won’t recognise that they, or at least their kids, should be learning English as their mother-tongue. Bush has a lot to answer for, but Obama with his drive to amnesty illegals, is a much more menacing prospect.

    All previous waves of immigrants no doubt remembered their origins and had Polish festivals, ‘Irish-American’ parades, Little Italies, etc. but didn’t try to impose their languages. Thus they became slightly-hyphenated Anglo-Saxons.

    However, America’s role as leading Anglo-Saxon power, never previously in doubt since the torch passed from the UK, is now in danger of being lost, because of multi-cult. This may or may not be desirable in some people’s eyes, but is nevertheless a significant detour from what the USA used to see as its future.

    However, what may be apllicable to a young country, which the US still is, should not be countenanced in historic nations like those of Europe, which for this argument’s purposes includes Britain. There, we had a senior bureaucrat admit that the Labour Party engineered the change by stealth, largely for their own electoral advantage.
    Trudeau and his successors in Canada’s Liberal Party, were similarly motivated, partly for electoral gain but also because they simply hated what Canada was, a British North American constitutional monarchy.

  20. Odinius says:

    Most of the “Latino separateness” phenomenon is myth. I’m currently on the supposed frontlines, and it looks quite different here. Sure there are some who refuse to integrate, but integration is actually quite widespread.

    The real problem is that our immigration policy makes it too easy to immigrate illegally, and too hard to immigrate legally.

  21. venna says:

    @Ross:

    The original dispute between Oigal and me was whether life in general was better in the 1950s, which I do think it was. With specific reference to women….
    _______________

    I add my context a little bit at first. Since I have limited resources about what happened during 1950s in Indonesia and its impact to women, I will use personal experience as the basic to describe whether women were happier and more content at that period than now.

    1950s was the time when my parents were around 1 and 3 yrs old. All my grandmas were housewives, my grand-grandpa had more than one wife, all were living close to each other (extended family type), main food resource was from the farm, and kids were nurtured by more than one person. I mean, the responsibility for taking care of kids was sometimes distributed between the extended family members; not only by moms.

    Were those women happy? From the story they’ve told me, I can conclude that they were happy. Everything was in harmony. The farm produced more than enough crops & grains, the air and water were pretty much very clean – less polluted, kids were healthy, the social status as religion leader family gave them more power and flexibility when interact with the society, and economic status enabled them to give better education to their children (of course for girls, less chance to have higher formal education because they would marry soon at a relatively young age, between 15-16 yrs old).

    A slightly different thing happened to my mom. She had relatively higher education than her peers, and when she married she decided to be a full-time housewife rather than working. It was completely different situation compared to my grandmas era, since my dad was working as a government staff and we lived far in urban area; not much economic support from the extended family, and the income source was completely from my dad’s salary.

    Was she happy? Yes, she was happy and content. But she was also vulnerable since she had no job, which means she didn’t have any alternative for income resource and she had to make sure everything was running well; my dad’s job was stable and expenses were less than the income. Once the stability was disturbed, her happiness was also disturbed.

    Now I move to second quote:
    I was thinking more in terms of contentment. Are for example Aussie or North American or British women truly happier now that they’ve been liberated?
    __________

    I need to read more about what happened during that period in North American for example, before deciding whether they were happier or not. Because, if I assume that women actually felt more content by doing their traditional role at that time (as a housewife and their husbands as the bread-winner), I think the same pattern will appear. Their happiness were pretty much also depended on their husbands. As long as their position as bread-winner were stable, less conflict arose in their house, and less worries for women. Once the economic messed up, e.g. layoff, industrial shifting into more mechanical than human labor, etc… women got the impact first and had to get out from the house to work; which means adding burden to them because they still had to take responsibility on the household chores. When the burden was too much, we cannot expect them to live happily except some adjustments were made, for example men doing the household chores while their wives working.

    I still not mention cases based on the liberal/feminism movement – maybe later. However, there are 2 articles that discuss in why women now are less happy than before (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html?pagewanted=print) and (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6395879.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1). From those 2 articles I make simple conclusion that if women are assumed to be happier at 1950s era, it maybe related to the different expectation. Right now, women face higher expectations, both from themselves or from the society. They have more choices, but also face challenges when they have to harmonize it.

    But are they really less happy than women before their era? I don’t think it will be easy to answer this because happiness, first, it is very subjective; and second, it is affected by many conditions.

    If I’ve been asked whether I choose to live at 1950s than now, I choose to live right now because despite all of the challenges that I have to face, I see more opportunities in front of my eyes that my mom and my grandmas never ever dreamed about. The chance to choose what’s best for me; either being a full housewife, having career, or pursuing my other dream. But I do feel that sometimes when a woman choose to be a full housewife, she doesn’t get enough appreciation from the society. It is quite an irony; when a woman gets more opportunities and at the same time she should bury her original dream about being a housewife just because it is not a “respectful” job at this modern era.

    Just my 2 cents. Let me know whether I grasp your point or not.

  22. ET says:

    Ross said

    All previous waves of immigrants no doubt remembered their origins and had Polish festivals, ‘Irish-American’ parades, Little Italies, etc. but didn’t try to impose their languages. Thus they became slightly-hyphenated Anglo-Saxons.

    By what right other than imperialist pretensions inherited from a British colonialist mindset Anglo-Saxons are allowed to speak about other ethnic groups trying to impose their languages? Present-day America has been built by immigration of various ethnic groups each with their own language, besides the Anglos also the Spanish, the French, the Italians, the Polish, the Nordics, the Chinese etc. Only the need for a lingua franca has made these ethnic groups adapt to a language which was not their own, for which they are now patronizingly reminded that the only true language for Americans should be some bastardized English.
    Actually I see no difference here between a policy that America belongs to the WASPs and the unwritten law that an Indonesian president has to be Javanese. In other words: plain dirty imperialism.

  23. ET says:

    But I do feel that sometimes when a woman choose to be a full housewife, she doesn’t get enough appreciation from the society. It is quite an irony; when a woman gets more opportunities and at the same time she should bury her original dream about being a housewife just because it is not a “respectful” job at this modern era.

    It’s not only the case for women, venna. Society and culture decides for all of us what happiness should be until you come to a point where you are able to show them the little finger. Then – provided they didn’t succeed to turn you into a coach potato or an acrimonious hag – you can pursue your own goals and reach for true happiness.

  24. katadiatheimmigrant says:

    I was going to say something along the line of immigrants/ guestworkers/expats etc but now that I’ve read Venna’s great response to Pak Ross, I decided to shut up.
    Bravo Venna!

  25. Ross says:

    Very interesting and non-belligerent response, Venna, which merits careful digestion bfeore I get back on it.

    Et seems to have forgotten that the USA was absolutely an Anglo-Saxon society from its very foundation, its leaders English country gentlemen and/or scholars.

    Of course it was their right to determine how their country should expand, and just as well, since their fellow-’emancipated’ Americans in Latin America, with a different political culture, produced very different results, a series of juntas, and currently another dirft to authoritarianism based on the hideous Cuban model, the most despotic society ever to emerge on that side of the Atlantic.

    America for its first hundred years only accepted immigrants whom they figured would settle into what their country was.

    Alas, since 1965, under the new immigration rules, devised by the late and widely unlamented Senator Kennedy, they have opened up their country and it is fast becoming more a mosaic than a melting pot, though some of the most different immigrants, i.e. the Orientals (and I suppose that’s non-PC terminology) have done very well.

    But a country that was homogeneous had an absolute right, ET, to try to keep itself that way. Diversity brings discord and no serious benefits, except varied cuisine in restos!

    Western Europe has suffered terribly through diversification of its populations and may disappear into the dust-bin of history as a consequence.

    .

  26. Ross says:

    Initial response, Venna, is to thank you agian for sticking to the honourable word ‘housewife..
    The looney feminazis in the West are trying to exclude it as a word, as part of their campaign to denigrate those women who like being at home looking after their familes and houses.
    We had a recent hysterical outburst by libs in Aussie, when opposition Leader Tony Abbott used it. He seemed to think that most ironing is done by women!
    For this outrageous truth he was attacked by all kinds of wierdos.
    And I should mention here that when I was single, ironing was the one chore I liked.
    You can enjoy broadcasts, even read a paper-back whilst doing it. Also burn good shirts!

  27. Odinius says:

    ET said:

    By what right other than imperialist pretensions inherited from a British colonialist mindset Anglo-Saxons are allowed to speak about other ethnic groups trying to impose their languages? Present-day America has been built by immigration of various ethnic groups each with their own language, besides the Anglos also the Spanish, the French, the Italians, the Polish, the Nordics, the Chinese etc. Only the need for a lingua franca has made these ethnic groups adapt to a language which was not their own, for which they are now patronizingly reminded that the only true language for Americans should be some bastardized English.
    Actually I see no difference here between a policy that America belongs to the WASPs and the unwritten law that an Indonesian president has to be Javanese. In other words: plain dirty imperialism.

    I agree with your sentiment…luckily this has become a fringe position. There was grumbling about making English the official language of the country in the 1990s, but this has dissipated as studies have come out showing, clearly, that virtually everyone speaks and reads English, and that the percentages have not declined.

    There’s a very real debate over illegal immigration and the host of problems associated with that, but people who are “anti-immigration” in this country are blatant hypocrites, as everyone is descended from immigrants, bar none.

  28. Ross says:

    And in almost all countries, everywhere. The Eskimos came across from Siberia, as did the Indians, and even the Javanese apparently came from somewhere up north. Franks invaded Gaul from Germany, Saxons invaded Britain.

    This nonsense about us all being immigrants is just that, nonsense. Canada was created by Brits and French, and America mostly by Brits, like Australia.

    Countries have a right to control who they choose to let in.
    And they ought to be more discriminating if they wish to survive as recognisable entities.

    America must make its own decisions, but if they allow Barack Husein and his Republican collaborators to amnesty 11 million illegals who jumped the queue, they slap decent
    honest would-be migrants in the face and clasp a shoal of vipers to their bosoms.

    Fortunately, many Americans remember the original illegal demos a couple of years ago. They marched in their thousands demanding their fraudulent enterprise be rewarded, carrying not the Stars and Stripes but the flags of a host of foreign lands – exactly the kind of disloyal garbage no country needs.

    Nowadays, Obama’s brainy boys, desperate for all those extra votes, have advised them to be more cautious, and the undesirables march with American flags, but real Americans won’t forget where these people’s true loyalties lie.

  29. deta says:

    But I do feel that sometimes when a woman choose to be a full housewife, she doesn’t get enough appreciation from the society. It is quite an irony; when a woman gets more opportunities and at the same time she should bury her original dream about being a housewife just because it is not a “respectful” job at this modern era.

    Interesting thought, Venna. I see that the problem of women who choose to be a housewife is not merely about not getting appreciation from the society, but the unease comes mostly from the sense of income insecurity, because they have to depend on their husbands to provide for their and their kids’ life. It’s quite wearisome, especially in Indonesia where there is no protection for women regarding their income when something happens to the marriage. This situation puts these housewives into a dilemma. While they have to take care of the children with less help from the extended family members as in the old days, on the other hand they also have to ‘prepare’ themselves if something gets in the marriage. Childcare is one option for them who can afford, but offering no solution at all since they cannot provide the same way of nurturing provided by the real parents.

    For women who manage to get a job and have someone that can help taking care of the children, the problem also comes from the imbalanced competition between male and female employees at work. With double burdens from job and family, women cannot pursue her career by utilizing their ability at max.

    And this mainly is the problem of women who live in urban area. If you lurk around some rural areas, the problem is not quite evident as a lot of families still live in the ‘old style’ where the extended family members live close and tend to help each other. But the problem is, there is not many opportunities to choose from for these women compared to their counterparts in urban areas. Ya, Indonesian women certainly still have a lot of home works to do. Were women happy in the old days? I don’t know. Are we happy now? Not yet.

  30. diego says:

    Happy nyepi 😀 I hope all IM’ers will use that opportunity to reflect their bad deeds (and bad posts, bad spelling, trolls, etc) they have made throughout the year. Chauuuuu…..

Comment on “Bekasi Bigots”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2023
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact