For some reason, we got Dutch commentary for last night's Manchester United-Ajax game. Thank goodness it was switched to English halfway through the first half. It's not that I enjoy football commentary in particular, but hearing that oft-parodied language in the background of a United match was disturbing, to say the least.
"Oft-parodied", yes. You see, Republic of Indonesia was the Dutch East Indies once upon a time, and we didn't part ways in the best of terms. "We'll accept your claim of independence"--I can imagine the Crown said disdainfully--"if you pay the Dutch East Indies' debts. All of them." That's exactly what we did. And Indonesians disdainfully retaliate by reducing all Dutch to the role of blabbering bad guy almost every time they appear on motion picture/TV movies/literature.
Anyway, I don't know for sure what the Dutch's cultural strategy for this particular colony was, but I dare say it was markedly different from that employed by other colonial powers, the French, for example. The Dutch and their practicalities, you have to hand it to them, really. Why bother with the theoretical discourse about cultural superiority when one can opt for a more practical approach? Learning local custom, and then infiltrating them to foment discord or inspire submission, say? (The Dutch were great ethnographers.)
Long story short, the Dutch didn't promote their language in this part of the world and thus, Dutch--the language, I mean--had never really taken roots in Indonesia. In his memoir Doing Java, anthropologist Niels Mulder remarked how difficult it was in the late '60s-'70s to find Indonesians who were capable of conversing in foreign language (Dutch, English, German, anything). That was twenty, thirty odd years after we declared our independence. These days, many Indonesians understand English, but Dutch? Even my brother, who majored History and therefore was required to learn Dutch at college, only scoff at my notion that he should at least be able to read Dutch text.
As we enter the second decade of the 21st century, it is the East Asian languages that seem to generate interest amongst young Indonesians. As for Dutch, a small number of my country fellowmen/-women will keep on learning it, no doubt, but while Dutch once functioned as a status symbol of some sort, nowadays fluency in Dutch would probably only earn you respect reserved for speakers of "exotic" languages, on a par with Russian or Farsi perhaps. Not too bad, eh?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Pointless 2/01/2012 01:17:00 PM
I hardly watch TV these days. And when I do "tune in", more often that not it's for the English Premier League, which isn't exactly what you call local content. Between the dramas, the reality shows, and the newscasts, I don't know which one is worse.
Anyway, one program I dislike in particular is a curious specimen. It is . . . what? A talk show? If you define "talk show" as a program in which people talk incessantly, then yes, it is pretty much it, although "open forum" would be more accurate. But there's a catch. Its participants aren't just your typical laymen; they're lawyers. (They invite a few non-lawyers too, though, usually to share their tales of woe or to represent some government agency.) Week in, week out, they regale us mere mortals with their well-informed opinions on a wide range of topics, from the inner politics of our country's football governing body, to DUI (last night's topic).
Oh, did I say "well-informed opinions"? Well, not really. Sure, at times they pepper their observations with reference to this or that chapter from our legislation. But they're mainly saying what everybody else knows, like "There's no justice for the poor in our justice system," or "The government had let us down."
While I understand that people need to whine now and then about the dismal state our country is in--lighten the load, you know--I can't fathom why they would want to listen some guys (yes, they're mostly male) in fancy suits doing the same thing. I mean, the kind of talk you hear in that show, I imagine it's pretty common at coffee shops and public pavilions (poskamling) in the whole country. Of course, when you engage in a discussion in such places, you can always participate, put your two cents, and not just sit passively. Like I said, it's not as if those lawyers give you new and valuable insights to the matter at hand. (And even if they do, it's only rarely.)
But . . . I'm being unfair. After all, those lawyers are encouraged to spew forth lame comments. And if they end up having a shouting match with each other, the better. In fact, I suspect that that's what the moderator is after. Stir up a bit controversy, heat things up.
Oops, maybe I should shut up now. In case they sue me for libel or something.
Anyway, one program I dislike in particular is a curious specimen. It is . . . what? A talk show? If you define "talk show" as a program in which people talk incessantly, then yes, it is pretty much it, although "open forum" would be more accurate. But there's a catch. Its participants aren't just your typical laymen; they're lawyers. (They invite a few non-lawyers too, though, usually to share their tales of woe or to represent some government agency.) Week in, week out, they regale us mere mortals with their well-informed opinions on a wide range of topics, from the inner politics of our country's football governing body, to DUI (last night's topic).
Oh, did I say "well-informed opinions"? Well, not really. Sure, at times they pepper their observations with reference to this or that chapter from our legislation. But they're mainly saying what everybody else knows, like "There's no justice for the poor in our justice system," or "The government had let us down."
While I understand that people need to whine now and then about the dismal state our country is in--lighten the load, you know--I can't fathom why they would want to listen some guys (yes, they're mostly male) in fancy suits doing the same thing. I mean, the kind of talk you hear in that show, I imagine it's pretty common at coffee shops and public pavilions (poskamling) in the whole country. Of course, when you engage in a discussion in such places, you can always participate, put your two cents, and not just sit passively. Like I said, it's not as if those lawyers give you new and valuable insights to the matter at hand. (And even if they do, it's only rarely.)
But . . . I'm being unfair. After all, those lawyers are encouraged to spew forth lame comments. And if they end up having a shouting match with each other, the better. In fact, I suspect that that's what the moderator is after. Stir up a bit controversy, heat things up.
Oops, maybe I should shut up now. In case they sue me for libel or something.