Dutch Martyrs
Pieter Dorsman wrote a great article about Dutch martyrs Theo van Gogh and especially Pim Fortuyn.
Today, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is taking America by storm and many commentators are struggling to explain her instant success following the publication of her recent biography. As they do they reconstruct her creative partnership with Dutch moviemaker Theo van Gogh, something that directly caused the latter’s death and eventually forced Hirsi Ali to pursue a new career on this side of the ocean. Yet it would not be a stretch to argue that if it hadn’t been for Pim Fortuyn – murdered five years ago today – that Van Gogh would still be alive and that Hirsi Ali’s would still be producing dull policy papers for the Dutch Labour party. Instead they both an uncharted course.
Every political rupture, every shift needs a change agent, a person brave enough to defy conventional thinking and embark on a mission that — even if it fails — will stand as a beacon for future disciples. In America Barry Goldwater rolled the dice and didn’t quite make it, but Reagan in the end benefited from his trailblazing effort.
So it was in the placid, structured and overly politically correct Dutch world where concepts such as success, ambition and renewal were relative unknowns or if they emerged, were met with deep resistance. And although Pim Fortuyn was to some extent part of the Dutch establishment, his ideas, style and tastes were a tad too rich and unconventional for the famed Dutch consensus. Fortuyn was rebuked by all parties – from left to right – and he consequently started his own party, without any constraints, something which probably suited him best. His struggle as a gay man that grew up in a Catholic household in the 1950s had probably given him the courage and raw individualism required to pull off a mission of this nature.
As Fortuyn saw it, provocation and a resulting ‘hefty debate’ were the essential tools to disrupt complacency and find alternative solutions to the challenges of a global and rudderless new century. Books like “Without Public Sector Employees†in a nation governed by pampered and firmly ensconced public servants and “Against the Islamization of our Culture†(in 1997, no less) in a country deeply committed to political correctness, were the opening shots of a much broader campaign.
While Fortuyn’s key strengths were arguing about less government with more room for the private sector and curbing immigration into a nation that was “fullâ€, Fortuyn’s passion and sharp debating skills were above all fueled by an intense dislike of the vested order. The establishment was his real target. Not only had it rebuffed him more than once, he was on an intellectual level able to demonstrate how vacuous it had become. This solidified his passion and support and it enabled him to draw followers from all layers of society.
There were quite some issues on which I disagreed with Fortuyn, I would not have voted for him, if for nothing else then because he was too divisive, but he did something that had to be done: the Netherlands had to get rid of political correctness, the Netherlands had to break with the notion that to criticize immigrants / immigration is (acting) racist, etc.
Cross posted at my own blog
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Dutch Martyrs”
While I AGREE with the gist of the message in this post, I am beginning to break out in a rash when I see the ‘political correctness’ label. It’s everywhere these days, like an ad for the newest brand of soft drink, and spills over in rhetoric to mean an ever increasing array of situations. When used as an epithet, it often just means ‘you don’t agree with me, and therefore you are being politically correct (i.e. stupid).
Correctness is very much akin to politeness, and polite behavior and speech I very much endorse. I find no fault with being sensitive to the feelings of others.
I support honest and straightforward talk, but not an unnecessarily confrontational, insulting or insensitive style. Since my position, too, is lately being swept up in the ‘political correctness’ vacuum bag, I long for the coining of new labels to differentiate between the many shades of the civility to brutality spectrum.
“I support honest and straightforward talk, but not an unnecessarily confrontational, insulting or insensitive style.”
And the border between one and the other lies where, exactly? There are areas where almost anyone can agree; banning Bah bah black sheep as racist is absurd, and calling for the death of all homosexuals is clearly bigoted. However there is a VAST gray area in between. In Spain, saying that crime has gone up because of immigration will get you labeled as a racist, even though it’s actually true, but considered “insensitive”. Sarkozy called the the youths burning cars and throwing rocks at firefighters “scum”. I agree wholeheartedly, but others thought his words unnecessarily insensitive.
I can see where “political correctness” can tire you, but I’ll tell you another word that gets tiresome; racist. Unlike political correctness, calling someone a racist is a grave insult, and is supposed to scare you into silence. I think THAT label is actually doing more harm than the political correctness label. It also has the added effect of giving cover to real racism, as people are beginning to tune out when they hear “racist!” uttered.
The thing about political correctness is that it is a version of trying to impose your own moral code on others. People who are secular feel that religious people do this when we say that one form of behavior is good and another form is bad or sinful. Then some of the same people who are bothered by that are the ones who will say that we have to condemn certain kinds of speech because the speech is impolite, offensive, bigoted, or what have you. (I’m not directing this at you personally, Doma, just speaking in generalities.)
Basically, if you don’t think certain remarks are polite, then no one is forcing you to speak that way (isn’t that the way the argument always goes against enforcing religious beliefs?) We all wish for people to behave in ways that we think are correct, but the reality is that we shouldn’t try to enforce what we see as ‘correct’ behavior on others. First of all, they may have a different viewpoint on what is correct, and second, even if they show no inclination toward trying to behave correctly it’s not our place to force them to behave differently. In a free society we have to respect the right of others even to be jerks.
The way I see it, politeness certainly is the correct way to behave and I wish for all people to behave that way, but I don’t want that at the expense of freedom. So, I have no problem with someone expressing condemnation of certain types of speech as long as the condemnation isn’t in the form of regulation of the offensive speech (as in university speech codes) or in the form of trying to censor by ostracizing the people who speak in the way that you find offensive.
And it also gets ridiculous at times when the definition of what is polite or non-offensive gets stretched to include things that are not impolite at all. That’s how I see this example about immigration: because some people who are bigoted might speak badly about immigrants doesn’t mean that someone else who is speaking the truth about a problem with immigrants not assimilating is being bigoted. It’s that broad brush that is the problem; another situation like that would be here in the US, because some bigoted people might say that a black man is articulate and express this in such a way to show surprise (as though this is a remarkable exception, because this person thinks that most black people are inarticulate), then someone else who is not bigoted can’t even compliment a black man with that adjective without being accused of a non-PC remark.
Lynx
said about the misuse of the word ‘racism:
“It also has the added effect of giving cover to real racism”
—
I agree
What I begin to see, though, is that the same thing is happening
with the overuse and misuse of the ‘political correctness’ label.
Unfortunately, I’m very bad at finding the exact correct words to express what I mean, so I’m no help in refining the language. However, I wish the more adept among us would begin to look for more precise ways to describe this social phenomenon.
Again, this is not a comment about the concept but about how we talk about it. How we label affects the way we think, which is the reason I pay attention and contemplate.
CS-
There are many angles from which to look at this, of course. I’ll just refer to one of the numerous concepts you brought up: encorcing correctness.
We teach children to be polite, i.e. ‘correct’: that it’s not polite to point out that a classmate has pimples even when this is true. We teach children to consider how our words will affect another. We do, in fact, try to enforce a sense of correctness on behavior, and it’s often the glue that holds a society together.
Today, ‘correctness’ has come to refer only to the cases where the concept has been extended to a degree that it impedes the ability to discuss anything honestly.
When correctness goes too far, I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a detriment to social debate and problem solving. What I regret is that this narrow focus is creating another extreme: that politeness and consideration are seen as negatives.
My point was and is that we need to be more careful as we negotiate the language road to understanding the issues at the heart of any matter.
I agree, but on the other hand there are times when it isn’t impolite to point out that someone has pimples (a dermatologist speaking to a patient, for example). And since adults can make this distinction, we ought to be able to do it in our political speech as well. When political correctness runs amok, what is happening is that society is assuming that we’re all children who can’t think beyond the ‘rules’ of politeness, and also making the assumption that politeness is more important than freedom.
I don’t know anyone who minds when a religious person says that something is bad or sinful. I do mind when they try to put that into law. I remember when blue laws were so pervasive that if you had a fuse blow in your house on Sunday and had forgotten to have a spare on hand you were stuck until Monday. There are the laws saying that liquor sales are OK…but not on Sunday. The only reason for these laws were the religious beliefs of some people being forced on others by the state.
There are lots of people in the world who think this is OK. Most of them aren’t Christians and are heartily criticized by many American Christians who want to do some of the same things here. While there are most certainly large differences of degree the core belief is the same. And that belief is “My religion is so good and right that it’s OK to make a law so the government can force everyone to follow some of its tenets.”.
Jim,
I completely agree with you about the issue of beliefs not being enshrined in law (I think blue laws are ridiculous and I’m glad most of them are finally being repealed).
And maybe you are not one who says that it’s not OK for Christians to state opinions on whether behavior is right or wrong, but there are plenty of people who are critical of that. If the shoe doesn’t fit, then don’t wear it.
I think that a lot of Americans do not understand what the situation was like in the Netherlands. Political correctness ruled: one really could not say ANYTHING that could be considered insulting, offending etc. It was greatly done, it was very very frustrating. We are still struggling with it, but the situation has greatly improved.
CS-
No one is arguing the ‘when political correctness runs amock’ theme. It’s been stated and restated in many different ways. WE ALL AGREE.
In fact, I was attempting to look more broadly at the issue precisely because eveyone agrees so much. When everyone is marching in the same direction, it becomes too easy to lose track of the direction in which they’re marching.
I argue that sensitiviy to others’ feelings is still important and should not be trampled on carelessly in the pursuit of one’s personal truth speaking. My position favors being sensitive to the feelings of religious people like you, for example.
I extend this consideration to people with other core issues. I understand why blacks are more sensitive to issues of racism and Jews to issues of anti-semitism.
The main theme of ‘political correctness has been settled. Now let’s look at some subtexts. One of those subtexts is consideration of others’ feelings and the willingness by some to paint consideration as a moral failing.
MVDG-
From my posititon on this issue, I will try to be sensitive to your past experiences when I argue about the overuse of the “political correctness’ label.
PS Did you ever read “Politics and the English Language” by Orwell? (HaHaHa)
“I argue that sensitiviy to others’ feelings is still important and should not be trampled on carelessly in the pursuit of one’s personal truth speaking. ”
I agree that sensitivity should be maintained. A lot of people who argue against political correctness, then use that argument as a license to say whatever is on their minds -offensive or not. But, OTOH, there is nothing wrong with using the same standards to judge everyone- with some allowances of course. I don’t believe in suspending one’s judgement just to avoid hurt feelings.