Prince Friso of the Dutch royal family has been now for 6 months in what is called PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE (PVS). (2)
The transfer to a UK hospital may pose legal problems, as procedures for ‘ending life’ in cases where there is no more chance of recovery is problematic in the UK – as we know of a recent case of a man that sought help for ending his life that had no future – and the formal refusal of a British court to allow ‘euthanasia’ in his case.
The Netherlands does have a more liberal law in this sense.
There are hardly any examples of people in PVS that regain consciousness, and even less that have any chance to function again as a human. Younger people stand statistically a bit more chance than middle age people like Prince Friso. In most cases ‘economics’ (the extreme high costs of keeping someone in such a permanent vegetative state) form the decisive argument for halting such treatment in a specialised medical ward.
In the case of the Royal House of the Netherlands the financial means are not a problem, but this affluence creates an ethical problem.
Recently a Dutch governmental medical advice commission did propose to scrap certain extreme expensive medications for a small group of special patients. This to cope with the ‘economic crisis’. This caused an uproar as life prolonging medication, even in cases of prolongation of life of weeks or months, should not be denied. Many spoke out in this way. From specialised medical staff to patient organisations and laymen. (2)
Now how does the Dutch Prince who is kept in permanent coma in a British private hospital, fits in this discussion?
Royals are human beings like any other, are they not? They do die after all like anybody else. Those who play their role in keeping monarchies alive, need to reflect also on the limits of prolonging life and the morals and ethics needed, there where we all have to face the sometimes paradoxical consequences of the ingenuity of modern medicine. (3)
We have now witnessed a state of exemption since the avalanche accident in Austria this winter of half a year. However sad it is, also royals should come to a decision, that may be harder to take because of their wealth.
The bereavement process of the family must have been frustrated and one wonders why the wife of Prince Friso has not had the courage to, or has been kept from, ending this ‘high tech’ medical ordeal.
Interview and photographs of Prince Friso and his wife Mabel and they way they enjoy London as the place were they work and live in the M magazine of Dutch daily NRC/Handelsblad May 2006. I did fade the Prince into an image of the brain surgery specialised Wellington Hospital where he is kept in coma now.
One hopes that Dutch Queen Beatrix who is used to control family affairs with an iron hand, will come to see that her hand is not the hand of God when she orders to pull the plugs out. It is time – also for a prince – to die.
(2) ”Unlike brain death, persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not recognized by statute as death in any legal system. In the US and UK, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.
This legal grey area has led to vocal advocates that those in PVS should be allowed to die. Others are equally determined that, if recovery is at all possible, care should continue. The existence of a small number of diagnosed PVS cases that have eventually resulted in improvement makes defining recovery as “impossible” particularly difficult in a legal sense.[4] This legal and ethical issue raises questions about autonomy, quality of life, appropriate use of resources, the wishes of family members, and professional responsibilities.” [Wikipedia on PVS]
(3) Radio Netherlands Worldwide; 31/7/2012: “An emotional debate is underway in the Netherlands over the value of a human life. On Sunday, a Dutch health insurance body announced that it was recommending that certain expensive drugs no longer be covered.”
(4) Radio Netherlands Worldwide 24/8/2012: An influential Dutch ethicist (Heleen Dupuis, former professor in medical ethics at the University of Leiden) has said that if Queen Beatrix’s son, Prince Johan Friso, had been hospitalised in the Netherlands after his ski accident, doctors would have already stopped his treatment.
This is old news about a book by the Argentinian author Ceferino Reato who managed to interview the former Argentinian dictator Jorge Rafaela Videla in prison and for the first time having Videla speak about the real numbers of people killed by his regime in his vision (7 to 8 thousand persons). The book was published in Argentina a few months ago, but it merits special attention in the Netherlands because the Dutch Royal House has a family relation with one participant in the Videla regime. This relationship has been constantly half denied and underplayed. The policy of the Dutch Royal House and Dutch governments is one of low profile on this issue, in the hope it will be forgotten.
When I checked today the Dutch library system I did not yet find a single copy in any Dutch public library (available or on order), including the Royal Library of the Netherlands. I will certainly write the last institution about this omission! (*) “Disposición Final”(final disposal) is the military jargon – of the Argentinian generals and government – for the murder of those that were seen as a danger to Argentinian society.
Wondering if the Dutch/Argentinian Royals did read this book already, a book in which the former boss of the father of Princess Maxima Zorregieta – Jorge Rafael Videla (1925-) – confesses finally his involvement with thousands of disappeared people during his government, a government in which Jorge Zorrequieta (1928-) proudly was participating as Minister of Agriculture, but Dutch authorities have refused to start a formal inquiry on his involvement. The picture shows Jorge Zorreguieta during a baptising ceremony of one of his granddaughters. If only he would have been so sentimental when participating in the murderous Videla government…
Jorge Zorreguieta remained outside of prison but when, as said by some, his position was only marginal why did he not speak out about his association to a government that was described by an Argentinian judge - María Elba Martínez in December 2010 – as being the perpetrator of “state terrorism” (***)
Jorge Rafael Videla serving life time sentence in prison
Jorge Rafael Videla as President of Argentina with his Minsiter of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta during a state parade in the years of the Argentinian dictatorship. (****)
—-
(*) The Dutch Royal Library is the national library of the Netherlands and has its buildings in The Hague, the town that is proud to be “a world centre of human rights” with its international courts on government crimes and the Peace Palace.
(**) There is a GoogleBooks version of the book “Disposición Final” on the internet and a search fro Zorreguieta does not produce any hit, which does not mean that it is possible that a member of the Videla government of that time would have been totally ignorant of the “state terror” unleashed.
Yapp, Robin (22 December 2010). “Former Argentine dictator Jorge Videla sentenced to life in prison”. The Telegraph (London)
(****) One of the many articles on attempts to persecute Jorge Zorreguieta also for his role in the Videla regime can be found in this article of the Argentinian newspaper Pagina|12 (9 September 2011)
Waarom lees ik die krant altijd zo slordig (aflevering 2)
“KONINKLIJKE FAMILIE KLUST…” mijn niet echt wakker oog schiet over het scherm waarop de gratis on-line editie van De Volkskrant en even verder op die computerkrantenpagina vangt mijn ooghoek een andere flard tekst: “JUSTITIE VERVOLGT VADER MAXIMA…” Er schieten allerlei gedachten door mijn hoofd bij dit slordig lezen: “waarom klussen ze er bij, dat is toch óver sinds Prins Bernard?” en “het kan toch niet waar zijn …Pa Zoreguieta dan toch vervolgd?!” Nog voor dat mijn oog de rest van die krantenkoppen gelezen heeft, klikt mijn hand al op de muis en ontdek ik dat het gaat om – niet meer en niet minder – éénmaal per jaar koninklijk vrijwilligerswerk. Ik zie daarbij een fraaie foto van een koningin op leeftijd die een hond op leeftijd eens lekker witwast. Terug op de hoofdpagina ontwaar ergens een kopje “INVALLEN IN WITWASZAAK ..”, maar ik wil eerst het mijne weten over de vader van Máxima en klik, daar zie ik op het einde van de regel het woordje “NIET.” “Toch jammer”, denk ik en in mijn warhoofd vervloeien al deze indrukken tot een nieuw en emblematisch schermbeeld.
Een van staatswege gecanoniseerde eenduidige geschiedsrepresentatie is een 19e eeuws idee. Het voorstel voor een nieuw Nederlands Historisch Museum in Arnhem is daarmee een 19e eeuws plan voor de 21e eeuw. Als er iets mis is met het historisch besef in Nederland dan hebben al die honderden al decennialang bestaande musea zich onvoldoende van hun taak gekweten en dienen we eerst uit te zoeken waaraan dat ligt. Een van de belangrijkste knelpunten is volgens mij het ‘huichelhollander’ complex: zich humaanvoelend en vooruitstrevend wanend in weerwil van enkel met de grootste moeite omzeilbare historische gegevens die weinig voedsel kunnen geven aan zoiets als ‘nationale trots’ en daarom verhult worden. De nu bestaande musea dienen eindelijk eens te beginnen om ook de keerzijde van het Hollands heldendom te tonen: de slavenhandel permanent in het Scheepvaart Museum, een aparte zaal over de Oost-Indische slachting en kunstroof op het eiland Lombok in het Rijksmuseum, de ontmaskering van de Batavierenmythe in het Allard Pierson, de gewelddadige aspecten van zowel Christendom als Islam in het Bijbels Museum, waarom Nederland de meeste Joden verloor in het Joods Historisch Museum en het Paleis Soestdijk met 2x de geschiedenis van de Oranjes: in monarchistisch en republikeins perspectief. – Ad Libitum. Kortom, geschiedenis als meervoudige waarheid. Geschiedenis die doet twijfelen. Geschiedenis als aanzet tot zelfstandig denken en handelen. Er zullen heel wat mensen zijn die dat weer ‘een tautologische stelling’ zullen vinden, geschiedenis kan immers enkel meervoudig zijn, maar… probeer dat de initiatiefnemers voor het aankweken van een ‘nieuw nationaal besef’ in de Lage Landen maar eens uit te leggen.
Eergisteren nog luisterde Prins Willem Alexander de Nationale Burendag op met het opgooien van een ontroerend goed balletje…. de sloop van enkele historische boerderijen op zijn Wassenaarse landgoed ‘De Horsten’. Het balletje viel jammer genoeg niet in goede aarde bij de Koninklijke Vereniging Heemschut die zegt ons erfgoed goed te willen beschermen en daarvoor ook de hulp van Hare Majesteit moeder van de prins als beschermvrouwe heeft. De armlastige prins wil namelijk op de grond van de te slopen historische boerderijen op zijn landgoed luxe villa’s bouwen en verhuren of verkopen om zijn in ongerede geraakte huishoudgeld te kunnen aanzuiveren. De Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst (RVD) probeerde nog media-strategisch de sloop wit te wassen door te laten vermelden dat het om al jaren niet meer in gebruik zijnde en verwaarloosde boerderijen gaat, alsof de ‘Leegstandswet’ niet voor het bezit van het Koninklijk Huis geldt. Ook stuurde de RVD een pittig commentaar aan de Volkskrant naar aanleiding van een ‘close reading’ sessie van het koningshuis niet gunstig gezinde verslaggeving over de affaire.
Pro-sloop filmpje geproduceerd door de Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst op de website van het koninklijk huis... klik plaatje voor link naar RVD filmpje
De buren van de prins weten wellicht niets van de burgerzin doelstellingen die door middel van de Nationale Burendag aan den volke getoond worden, dat kan mede veroorzaakt worden door de ongunstige woonsituatie van de prins waar letterlijk ‘in velde noch wege’ buren te zien zijn. De buiten het prinselijk zicht verblijvende buren hebben zich dan ook niet ontzien om een bezwaarprocedure tegen Prins’ sloopplannen aan te kondigen.
De onroerend goed affaires van de prins zijn niet enkel lokaal, maar hebben ook mondiale proporties aangenomen, zich afspelend op drie continenten: Afrika, Zuid Amerika en Europa. Na de nederlaag op het strand bij het villa-ontwikkelingsproject Machangulo in Mozambique en zijn ontwijkende troepenbewegingen in de bergen van Villa La Angustura in Patagonië wacht de onroerende Prins nu een nederlaag – vlak bij het eigen kamp – bij de Wassenaarseslag.
Wij kunnen nu weliswaar met de digitale piloot van Google Maps en Google Earth naar en over al die met het prinselijk paar gerelateerde onroerend goed ondernemingen vliegen, maar de betekenissen van ieder van die plaatsen wordt daarmee nog niet blootgelegd. Deze interactieve computer kaart ontbeert een sociale en historische ‘legende’ en om dat goed te doen heb je een royale toelage nodig om al de relevante bronnen in het nodige detail te kunnen bestuderen en daar een evenwichtige samenvatting van te kunnen geven. Ik noteer hieronder – als hinkende bode – enkel wat kijkend naar die kaarten weer in mijn herinnering opkomt en prik heel schuchter in de eerste lagen van verder te ontsluiten achtergrondmateriaal…
Schoolplaat zoals ik die tot in de zestiger jaren van de vorige eeuw nog gebruikt werd om een nationaal volksbesef te kweken..
Aangeland in 1813 op het Scheveninger strand en volgens de nationale canon met gejuich door het volk ontvangenen om vervolgens op een boerenwagen door de duinen naar de hofstad getrokken te worden, om niet veel later van in exil verblijvende prinsen behorende tot een verloren gegane republiek tot erfelijke koningen te worden, is er die bijzondere band van de Oranjes met de duinen en het strand ontstaan van Scheveningen tot de Wassenaarseslag. Zo had koningin Wilhelmina haar duinhuis op de ‘Ruigenhoek’ even ten noorden van Scheveningen waar zij ‘eenzaam maar niet alleen’ het duinleven aquarelleerde en had haar schoonzoon een jachthuis even verderop bij Wassenaar, waar hij met zijn ‘belle Hélène’ de vrije liefde bedreef, waaruit zijn dochter ‘Alexia‘ werd geboren, enkele maanden na de geboorte van zijn kleinzoon Willem Alexander . Of die tweede naam ‘Alexander’ enkel een toevallige naamsovereenkomst is blijft ongewis. Wel koos Willem Alexander hetzelfde nabijgelegen duingebied om er zijn meer burgerlijk huwelijkse bestaan in te richten.
De Ruigenhoek Scheveningen, landgoed van H.M. de Koningin zegt het onderschrift bij deze slechte reproductie van een briefkaart. Als een jongetje op bezoek bij mijn Oma fietste ik vaak door de duinen richting Wassenaar en dan kon je net zo de kap van de villa van Wilhelmina zien. Juliana gebruikte het huis nog als vakantieoord voor leden van haar hofhouding en onder Beatrix kwam het verwaarloosd leeg te staan en brandde uiteindelijk in 1983 geheel af.
Locatie van de omtrekkende beweging bij Villa La Angustura in Patagonië in het natuurreservaat bij het Nahuel Huapi meer en het investeringsproject ‘Mueu de Piedra’. Of de echtgenote van prins Willem Alexander maxima hem heeft weten te vertellen wat voor een uiterst bijzonder plek dit is, ik kan er nergens verwijzingen naar vinden. Oorspronkelijk het land van de Tehuelche, Puelche en Pehuenche indianenstammen, in 1620 ontdekt door door met het zwaard van god rondtrekkende Jezuïeten, verloren gegane expedities die een mythe laten ontstaan van een door Spaanse schipbreukelingen gestichte wonderbaarlijke stad een evenknie van het gezochte ‘El Dorado’ een hoog in de bergen gelegen meer tussen twee bergen, de een van goud de ander van diamanten… ik zal mij er in verdiepen met andere bron dan de over elkaar heen duikelende speculatieve web sites: “Cronica historica del Lago Nahuel Huapi” door Juan M Biedma en er later verslag van doen….
Locatie van de slag bij het strand van Machangulo in Mozambique
Het schiereiland van Machangulo met aan de Indische Oceaan kant het villapark waar prins Willem Alexander zijn villa kocht en die inmiddels weer te koop heeft gezet na een stroom van negatieve berichtgeving...
While most of the multi-cultural minded Dutch nation are happily on vacation a conspiracy is taking shape in all secrecy under the leadership of Batavian chieftain Beatrix Lubbers to join the cohorts of VVD, CDA and PVV into a force to reverse history and to isolate the Netherlands from the rest of the world by reinstating the mythical ‘ Insula Batavorum‘ *) of Roman times … “Down with the non Batavian Allochtoons” they shout when they cross their swords.
The Conspiration of the Bataves a painting of 1662 by Rembrandt van Rijn
===
*) Source Wikipedia: “In the 16th-century invention of a suitably antique origin myth for the Dutch people that would be expressive of their self-identification as separate from their neighbors in the national struggle with Spain of the Eighty Years War for Dutch independence, the Batavians came to be regarded as their eponymous ancestors.[6] The mix of fancy and fact in the Cronyke van Hollandt, Zeelandt ende Vriesland (called the Divisiekronike), first published in 1517, brought the spare remarks in Tacitus’ newly-rediscovered Germania to a popular public; it was being reprinted as late as 1802.[7] Contemporary Dutch virtues of independence, fortitude and industry were rendered fully recognizable among the Batavians in more scholarly history represented in Hugo Grotius’ Liber de Antiquitate Republicae Batavicorum (1610). The myth was perpetuated by Romeyn de Hooghe’s Spiegel van Staat der Vereenigden Nederlanden (“Mirror of the State of the United Netherlands”, 1706), which also ran to many editions, and it was revived in the atmosphere of Romantic nationalism in the late eighteenth-century reforms that saw a short-lived Batavian Republic and, in the colony of the Dutch East Indies, a capital (now Jakarta) that was named Batavia. Modern variants of the Batavian founding myth are made more credible by pointing out that the Batavians were only part of the ancestry of the Dutch people, together with the Frisians, Franks and Saxons, and by tracing patterns of DNA. Echoes of this supposed cultural continuity may still be found in popularisations of the history that follows.”
Compromise happens to be the most radical act in politics, allowing for the sharing of power, accepting differences to such an extant that it even changes your own opinion. In Dutch politics there always have been more horses wanting to draw the carriage of state than directions to go to, so compromises of what direction to take need to be made. Today after weeks of negotiations the attempt to form a Liberal + Middle + Left + Green ‘carriage-and-four’ combination failed. We are back to two options that have been considered over a month or so back in time, with two possible ‘troikas’ (horse teams) with Left + Middle + Liberal or a set of horses with Liberal + Middle + Right horses. The power distribution of all this pulling power is such that the two combinations on view – once again – will have the same pulling forward power as the pulling backward power of the possible opposition coalitions in parliament. So the outcome may well be no movement at all. Backing the wrong coalition of horses may end up with putting the cart before the horse.
What we see is the unwise consequences of parliamentary democracy, where parties did not make it clear before elections with which other horses they would like to pull the carriage. “It is to the voters to speak” that is what most party leaders said before elections. This speculative and unclear tactics whereby parties try to keep the mandate they receive from their voters to themselves and settle a government coalition in non-transparent outmoded secret back-room negotiations, have now shown its undemocratic face and utter failure.
The Netherlands need a fundamental change whereby the dynamic favour shifts of the electorate can find a real democratic expression in a series of binding combinations, that have been communicated clearly before elections. With the institution of a direct involvement of a constitutional head of state – in the form of a hereditary queen or king – in the forming of government coalitions, the Netherlands remain one of the most backward nations in Europe when it comes to direct forms of democracy. This in spite of all the self-glorification of the Dutch as a freedom loving and superior democratic nation. That is nothing more than double-dutch fantasy… or better a dutch-lie.
Amsterdamse raad ‘in geheim’ bijeen” (over de nieuw te benoemen burgermeester) lees ik net in Het Parool, zo gaat dat bij ons in democratisch Nederland en terecht! Een regent die kun je niet kiezen… zulk een benoeming gaat alleen maar als het binnenskamers ‘bekokstoofd’ wordt. Onze democratisch verkozen vertegenwoordigers komen vanavond in het geheim bij elkaar en volvoeren dan een ceremonieel dat niet zou misstaan in de congregatie van geheimzinnig doende organisaties als de Vrijmetselaars. Coöptatie democratie dus, de kiezer stemt alleen in een stemhokje en de verkozenen gaan vervolgens binnenskamers, om belangrijke beslissingen gaar te stomen voor het daarop volgend ceremonieel van het ‘publieke debat’. Er is een term voor dit bijkans universele verschijnsel: ‘publieke samenzwering’. Wij zijn er aan gewend, wij weten niet beter, wij accepteren bij voorbaat dat het er zo aan toegaat. Onze volksvertegenwoordigers zweren – door ons gemandateerd – samen. Zo is nu eenmaal ‘het politiek bedrijf’. In het geval van een “door de kroon benoemde” burgermeester is er inmiddels een ‘vertrouwensspel’ in zwang gekomen, dat heel ‘publiek’ in het dagblad Het Parool beschreven staat (*). De burgers van deze stad komen er niet aan te pas, hoe kan het ook anders? Welk kind kiest zijn of haar eigen vader of moeder? Wij stadsburgers zijn immers niet anders dan onmondige kinderen?
Gisteren kwam ik bij een onderzoek bij het IISG, teruggravend tot in de zestiger jaren, een pamfletje tegen over hetzelfde Amsterdam in andere tijden waar het ging over het ontberen van ‘demonstratievrijheid’ en op datzelfde pamfletje stond ook de eis voor een “gekozen burgermeester”. Dat was in de tijd dat iedereen nog onverbloemd wist te spreken over ‘regentenmentaliteit’, waar vandaag een waas van overmatige communicatie ons vrijwel blind heeft gemaakt voor de grote mate van continuïteit van het systeem van macht.
De keerzijde van dit pamflet met de ondertekenaars, is interessant, omdat een deel van de genoemde socialistisch georiënteerde organisaties (ANJV, OPSJ gelieerd aan de Communistische Partij; FJG aan de PvdA) waarvan meerdere leden later tot in hoge regionen van diverse politieke partijen gestegen zijn, het in bijna een halve eeuw toch niet voor elkaar hebben kunnen krijgen om dat van de “gekozen burgermeester” ook echt voor elkaar te boksen.
Ik heb hier nog een schets voor een verkiezingsaffiche liggen die laat zien hoe het er in de Regentenstaat der Nederlanden aan toe gaat, een ontwerp dat jammer genoeg altijd actueel blijft…
“AMSTERDAM – Amsterdamse gemeenteraadsleden hebben per sms een oproep gekregen om woensdagavond naar de Stopera te komen. Het moest geheim blijven, maar daar vindt om half acht een raadsvergadering plaats. Enig agendapunt: de voordracht van een nieuwe burgemeester.
Bij aanvang van de vergadering krijgen de raadsleden de voordracht onder ogen van de ‘vertrouwenscommissie’, waarin alle fracties met één lid zijn vertegenwoordigd.
Tot nog toe bekende kandidaten zijn Eberhardt van der Laan, Roger van Boxtel en Annemarie Jorritsma. De voordracht bevat in principe twee namen, waarbij als het aan de commissie ligt de nummer één Job Cohen opvolgt. Vervolgens volgt een schorsing van onbepaalde tijd, waarin de fracties apart vergaderen over de voordracht: steunen ze die of proberen ze de nummer twee naar voren te schuiven?
De raadsvergadering wordt hervat met een geheime, schriftelijke stemming. De uitslag wordt gemeld aan de commissaris van de koningin en de twee kandidaten. Daarna maakt de gemeente officieel bekend wie kandidaat nummer één is.
Die kandidaat wordt bij het kabinet voorgedragen voor benoeming. De hoop is dat het kabinet volgende week de voordracht bekrachtigt. Dan kan de nieuwe burgemeester 7 juli in de raad geïnstalleerd worden.? (HET PAROOL)
De Damschreeuwer = VRIJ maar nog niet vrijgesproken.
416 mensen ondertekenden de petities gestart door Hen Krol, talloze commentaren en veroordelingen van zijn gijzeling/voorarrest waren in de eerste twee weken te horen, later verminderde de belangstelling, zoals fraai te zien is op de petities.nl web site. Voor het digitale nageslacht hierbij de belangstellingscurve… van de petitie-site.
De conference van Freek de Jonge aan de vooravond van de verkiezingen zal zeker aan de overwegingen van de rechters om hem niet langer in voorarrest te houden hebben bijgedragen. Toch nog de macht van het woord? Wel versterkt door geconcentreerde media-aanschat (1.6 miljoen kijkers) denk ik mij als getal te herinneren. De zaak zelf is nog niet afgedaan. Het is van belang om ook de nu intredende vertragingstactiek van het rechtssysteem bij te houden. De zaak begint nu overeenkomsten te vertonen met die van de wegens majesteitsschennis op de Dam in Amsterdam opgepakte Uruguayse demonstrant tegen “De Domme Prins” en zijn ontkenning van enige betrokkenheid van zijn schoonvader bij de Argentijnse genocide tijdens de vuile oorlog (in het jaar 2002). Waarmee we tevens in de toekomst kijken en luisteren en een schreeuw over de Dam denken te horen “Nunca Mas!” tijdens de kroning van Willem Alexander met Pa Zorreguieta op het bordes van het paleis. De lieden die dat mogelijk gaan roepen zijn waarschijnlijk meer nuchter dan de Damschreeuwer op de vroege avond van 4 mei 2010.
‘Prins Bernhard was lid van NSDAP’ lees ik zojuist in de Volkskrant waar verslag gedaan wordt van de promotie van historica Annejet van der Zijl op basis van haar proefschrift “Bernhard. Een verborgen geschiedenis” waarin het al decennia lang im omloop zijnde verhaal over Bernard’s lidmaatschap van de nationaal-socialistische partij NSDAP, historisch geboekstaafd wordt.
Bij mij riep dat direct – als vroeger archivaris van het Provo-archief – het pamflet in herinnering dat in juli 1965 door Jan-Huib Blans uitgeven en verspreid werd… “WIE VAN DE 3 is de grootste demokraat? / CARLOS – CLAUS – BERNHARD en we zien drie foto’s van Oranje prinsen, Carlos in burger costuum, Claus in Hitler Jugend Uniform en Bernhard in burgercostuum met zijn geliefde witte anjer op het refer.
klik pamflet voor vol formaat (ik zal een betere scan laten maken en die hier spoedig plaatsen)
Helemaal onder het pamflet staat de leuze: ”geen Monarchie, maar Anarchie!” met daarboven “De val van het Oranje-Gezag zal ook de overige autoriteiten aan het wankelen brengen.” Nu het pamflet werd binnen de kortst mogelijke keren in beslag genomen, maar daarover is al vaak en eerder uitgebreid bericht, zodat ik volstaan kan met een link naar een passage uit het boek van Roel van Duijn “Provo: de geschiedenis van de provotarische beweging 1965-1967″ op de van overheidswege onderhouden web site DBNL, scroll naar pagina 22.
“Op 25-jarige leeftijd lid van de FASCISTISCHE Reiter SS. Liet bij zijn huwelijk met Juliana het Horst Wessel-lied spelen.” lees ik onder de foto van Bernhard. Of deze specifieke bewering ook juist is, moet ik nog nalezen in het proefschrift dat nog niet on-line ter beschikking is. Dat wordt dus bladeren in de boekhandel of bibliotheek. Het is enkel om de genoegdoening dat ruimte en tijd gestoken is in een onderzoek met een officiële wetenschappelijke status, dat zoiets onpopulair’s als het bruine verleden van een als nationale oorlogsheld gecanoniseerde Prins der Nederlanden in detail onderzocht is, dat ik bij deze dit pamflet weer onder de aandacht breng.
Het kan best zijn dat Bernhard teruggekomen is van zijn jeugdzonde, alsook vroege carrière bij de bekende Duitse gifgas firma IG Farben (hij werkte enige tijd voor het Parijse kantoor van die firma), maar nog geen halve eeuw geleden werden jonge mensen die in het reine met het onreine oorlogsverleden van Nederland wensten te komen gearresteerd en vervolgd omdat zij een gelijk soort verband legde als een jonge historica nu. Daarvan – nogmaals – hierbij acte.
Hier het bibliografische record uit de Amsterdamse Pamflettencatalogus van Frans Panholzer:
===============================
Volnummer = 6505380 Datum = 1-7-65/1 Titel = provokatie nr.3 WIE VAN DE 3 is de grootste demokraat? — Vindplaats = FP UB GA ISG SA UB = GA = IISG = SA = SA 005/001.1.04 Bibliografie = folio, stencil en el.stencil, foto’s Opmerking = Tekst: R.van Duyn, uitgave J-H.Blans. Lit: Van Duyn (1967) p.22. Zie 13-7-65/1, 16-7-65/1 en -4-80/13. Facs.in Ratio en Van Duyn (1985) p.22. Origineel el.stencil en typoscript op UB. Inbeslaggenomen Serie = Provokatie 3 Sys1 = Diversen
===============================
When we shout “Viva Mexico Hijos de la Chingada!” we express our desire to live closed off from the outside world, and above all, from the past. In this shout we deny our origins and deny our hybridism.
[Octavio Paz "The labyrinth of solitude: and the other Mexico" (first edition published in 1950 as "El laberinto de la soledad"]
Prince Willem Alexander spiced up his state visit lecture in Mexico on environmental issues on November 4 2009 (as he likes to change his color from orange to green) with this little sentence: “Let me conclude by giving you a Mexican proverb.
“Camaron que se duerme se lo lleva la chingada”.
(intended as “a shrimp that is sleeps is washed away by the tide”)
It had to be ‘corriente’ instead of ‘chingada’ with its historical connotation of violence as started by conquistador Cortes: molesting, pricking, wounding, killing, the violated mother and many more negative associations.
The prince thus has created himself a new emblematic personality “THE SHRIMP PRINCE” or in Dutch PRINS GARNAAL (with its connotation of the word Prinsgemaal, the Dutch attribute given to the husband of a queen).
A visualization of the Mexican proverb in the version of Willem Alexander, image elements are: the Procaris Mexicana schrimp; the 1519 massacre of Cholula by Cortes his army and allied Tlaxcalteca indians as depicted in the Codex Lienzo de Tlaxcala (ca. 1550-1555). With La Malinche nicknamed La Chingada as a traitor to her own people, pointing where to go. ~ Click picture to have a full size view.
This quotation has been taken from a Youtube copy of a Mexican Television report on this state visit event.
Interesting is how Dutch public television managed to simplify the Mexican connotation of the word “la chingada” and in their stupidity even failed to check their Spanish dictionary, coming up with this blant untruthful translation and subsequent interpretation. The anchorman starts of with explaining what the prince intended to say “he wanted to say ‘a sleeping shrimp is dragged away by the tide’ but because of a little translation mistake” (vertaalfoutje) it became something else completely.” Very diplomatic and refined, the possible translations of the pejorative term ‘chingada’ – as spoken by the prince – are not pronounced by the anchorman, it is only in the subtitles that the Dutch television public can learn what has been said.
The Dutch television caption of the proverb reads: “een slapende garnaal gaat naar de klote” (a sleeping shrimps goes to the bullocks/balls; has a shitty end). A translation that does not honor the scale of Mexican connotations available. The commentator then quickly explains: “The last word does mean in the whole of Latin America ‘tide’, though, except in Mexico, and the translator was ignorant of this fact.” Not only this main national public television station made this completely wrong remark suggesting that in other Latin American countries the word ‘chingada’ has the meaning of ‘tide’, it can be found back in several other television stations and news papers (see note *), hence this source of this misinformation has been ’on the news wire’, though I could not trace back its origin yet (would be interesting to know if the State Information Service RVD is the source of this). This little episode of royal glory was presented under the header: “Willem-Alexander slachtoffer van vertaalfout” (Willem-Alexander victim of translation mistake). We are thrown back centuries, to times when royals could never be mistaken and when needed put the blame on someone else. I am speaking here not of a holiday outing of some members of a certain family called ‘Van Oranje’, it is a state visit, but in our monarchy the roayls can by constitution not be held responsible for their deeds, which compares badly to – say – the position of government ministers that formerly have to accept full responsibility for their position. This is grotesque! For what is expressed in the original Mexican proverb there are – to my knowledge – only two Spanish words that apply: ‘marea’ and ‘corriente’. There is no relation whatsoever with the meanings of ‘chingada’ and the notion of ‘tide’. All this may have been not intentional fraud, but is yet another expression of what happens when a constitutional monarchy reigns in the wrong century. The high media profile of the House of Orange as pushed through the media upon the whole nation for decades, is haunting millions of sober observers at a frequency of several times a week, both laughable and shameful.
It was not just one Dutch national television channel that twisted the meaning of the translation mistake, almost all channels and newspapers have been busy to cover up the embarrassment with off the point arguments, of which I will give a few examples in Dutch as a footnote (*).
The incident itself is of course of little importance, but the reactions on it tell us something on how Dutch media function, how lazy our journalists are, that they even fail to harvest the power of the ubiquitous internet search machines. When one digs a bit deeper there is some sense in the mistake and why it has been made. It must have all started with the prince himself or his ghostwriter to add some local reference into a state visit speech (a standard thing to do in diplomacy). In the old days of speech construction it was dictionaries of proverbs that would be referenced, now we have the internet and Wikiquote is a handy tool and it has a page called “Mexican proverbs” which has about fifty of them (mind you the same proverb is used in Chile and Venezuela and maybe common in the whole of Spanish Latin America). And, yes there it is:
“Camarón que se duerme se lo lleva la corriente”
“Shrimp that sleeps gets carried by the tide”
Meaning, if you get distracted (or asleep), you will be left behind; or you snooze you lose.
So maybe the prince or his ghostwriter did find this page, quoted just the English version and then passed that on to the state functionaries responsible for the royal Mexican trip, in this case the Ministry of Economic Affairs (why else would the royals go there?). The ministry passed it on to a translator, who is said to be an Argentinian (maybe a friend or associate of the prince’s wife Maxima). So probably the English rendering of a Mexican Spanish proverb had to be translated back into Spanish, without recourse to the original Spanish version. One commentor in the blogosphere (Proz.com/the translator workplace) asked himself how the word ‘corriente’ could be mixed up in any way with the word ‘chingada’: “How could the translator mistake “corriente” with “chingada”? They’re no homonyms, letters starting with different alphabets, completely different pronunciations, and I can’t come up with any similarity among these two words…” and that seems to be a correct observation. What was it that drove the translator to the word chinga…? It may be that this kind of recommandation was in his mind, as explained on the useful web site “Just Landed” with good and quick advice how to appear to be groovy within minutes in a foreign country, explaining the difference between Mexican Spanish and spanish Spanish:
A Mexican slang word you will hear continuously is the word chingar – which can be replaced by the more polite word fregar depending on who you are talking to. Depending on the circumstances, chingar can describe almost any situation or emotion you can think of. Here are some examples:
está de la chingada – this is shit
es una chingadera – this is terrible
no me chingues – don’t get on my nerves
está chingón – this is great
Some Mexicans go as far as seeing the word chingar as one of the utmost expressions of Mexican feelings and culture, and you will definitely be seen as more ‘Mexican’ when using it appropriately.
Tourist photograph from Mexico with a sign on a low life villa.
Still the web page also warns: “However, the first meeting with your new girlfriend’s parents is NOT an appropriate situation for practicing your new vocabulary, though as a foreigner you are likely to be forgiven your first few mistakes with Mexican vocabulary.”
All this has not answered yet the primary question, why and how this could happen. There must be some reason for the translator to have offered this version. There are two possible options (as we will leave out a pure change voodoo-typo at some stage in the speech production process, or an even more improbable option that a malign inspiration or hangover lapses made Willem-Alexander produce the wrong word at the wrong moment). The options are:
1) sabotage
2) poetic intervention
1)
The sabotage option needs some fantasy, but, still has some historical reality basis. As several sources mention the Argentine nationality of the translator, in theory that person could have a crunch against the direct relation between the Royal House of Orange and the Argentin Zorreguieta famliy and its pater famillias Jorge Horacio Zorreguieta Stefani, Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture from 1976 tot 1981 of the military regime of Videla. The inventive ways in which Jorge Zorreguieta has been downplaying his involvement in the regime that produced the Dirty War with its thousands of disappeared/murdered persons, could have been the motive for what in military terms is called ‘a target of opportunity’. The translator may have thought about the 1100 people disappeared on and near the estates of landowner Zorreguieta in the Tucumé region or about the case of the son of Marta Sierra ( a person known to Zorreguieta) that disdappeared and for which he has been called by the tribunal to attest; without a real court case against him, which means his guilt has not been established, but at the same which fact has frustrated several people who think the contrary. So this word ‘chingada’ might have been slipped in purposely to upset the prince to have a little revenge, with the perpetrator possibly thinking “ay… hijo de la chingana!” (son of a bitch) got you….
2)
It is a poetic intervention of the translator who associated the washing away by the tide of a shrimp with a colloquial expression of being ‘fucked up’ as the washing or carrying away of a small shrimp by a strong tide is indeed a violent event. The verb ‘llevar’ can also be found in the expression “Me lleva la chingada” (to say that something really bad is happening to me), so this might have been the impetus for the translator to render the proverb in such an unusual way. “se lo lleva la chingada” can also be translated as is getting lost, like in the expression “El que se casa se lo lleva la chingada” (The one who gets married is lost). On the often very useful web site “Urban Dictionary” a street level collection of words and expressions for globetrotters an exposé on further combinations with the word ‘chingada’ can be found; a more serious overview is on a Wikipedia page about Spanish profanity (Chingar comes from the Caló (Spanish Romani) word čingarár, meaning “to fight and in Mexico its meaning was extended to ‘to fuck someone’ or ‘to make a mistake’, with many more meanings added over the centuries … Still I have left out till now a more fundamental association of this word which has been formulated half a century ago by the national writer of Mexico Octavio Paz which explains the strong reactions of the audience on the word and the followup in the Mexican news media.
Malinche translating for Cortés
It is the historical figure of an indian noble lady by the name of Malintzín Tenepal that had been sold by her mother as a slave to another indian tribe and was later presented as a gift to the Spanish invaders. She became an interpreter for the conquistador Hernán Cortes first translating between different indian languages to Maya – that could be understood by a Spanish priest. Later she learned to interpret directly to Cortes who found her indispensable for his quest for power. She became a concubine of Cortes and bore him a child one of the first mestizas children. She is both said to have helped to trick and force her own nation into submission and to have prevented much worse slaughter and destruction. She was known by other names: Doña Marina and La Malinche. She is a complicated figure, traitor and protector, both mother and whore, the last things earned her the nickname La Chingada (the screwed one). It is Octavio Paz who summarizes after centuries the symbolic meaning of ’La Chingada’: “The idea of La Chingada functions not only as a curse, but as a reminder of the power of the interpreter, even five hundred years after the conquest.” (**) Paz explains the indentity crisis of the modern Mexican: colonial Spain vanished, collapsed indian empires, mixed desendence, mulatto, criollo, mestizo, zambo, a past out of reach, a modern western state form that does not fit, in short “a fucked up nation”: Chingaderas!
José Clemente Orozco's (1883-1949) mural made in the period 1923-1926 in the Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefenso in Mexico City, depicting Cortés (1485-1547) and La Malinche (1505-1530), mentioned by Octavio Paz in 1950 and once more interpreted by Tere Romo in a study published in 2005 (***): "Orozco subtly addresses the inherent power relation of conquest. While Cortés holds one of her hands, Malinche casts her eyes downward toward the native figure on the ground. Cortés's restraining gesture (with his other hand) clearly indicates that she too, is under control of his will."
The “power of the interpreter” once again, not on a macro scale but on a micro level, surfacing during a silly incident. Lots of symbolic meaning, nevertheless. The odd combination of the Mexican proverb with the sleepy shrimp washed away by the tide and the Mexican universe expressed in the word “la chingadera” still has not been explained by all this. What did the translator really had in mind? Should I reconsider the option of the Prince performing some provocative practical joke (in his later years his father Prince Claus was renown for having done so at a few occasions). And then, as I kept searching and started to filter away any recent repetition of the by now famous line of prince Willem-Alexander, a few references from 2006 came up with a song having exactly the same text line on the web site of ‘Artist direct‘: “Camaron que se duerme se lo lleva la chingada” published on a CD with the title “En Vivo, Vol.2 (Ultima).” I tried to play the tune as there was a small button with a loudspeaker on the web page, but it was only an announcement of a new set to be played during a life performance … I did find several other web sites selling the same CDs, but same thing, the song itself could not be listened to. After many more attempts I found a web site with a telephone number of the music group … in the USA and so I called. A man with a Spanish accent came on the pohone but he hung up in seconds without giving me a chance to explain the cause of my call. So now I am waiting if an email message may be answered by any of the group members. Could it be a sheer chance event, is there any relation? The group ‘Sonido Bravo’ seems to be a ‘corrido’ music group working with electronic instruments and light effects, recycling the traditional story telling songs of Mexican common people in a 21st century dressing. I wonder which tale the Sonida Bravo song tells, we have to wait for more information to come in.
Web site "Artists Direct" which list the CD with the song/work "Camaron Que Se Duerme Se lo Lleva La Chingada" by the group "Sonido Bravo" ; the sample that can be played is very short and seems to be just an announcement. It could be that there there is more than one group with this name, on Youtube several videos of a group called "Sonido Bravo" can be found, but I could not find out if that is the same as on the sample CD as presented on this web page. Click image for full view.
I may close off with another Mexican proverb – which will be correctly translated as I take a serious academic publication as my source -
“En boca cerrada no entran moscas” (no fly will get in a closed mouth). (****)
Lets be on the alert for more information to find out why the Shrimp Prince did catch a fly, maybe he should have better kept his mouth shut.
National Dutch news (NOS Journaal): "Prince Willem Alexander became a vicitim of a somewhat painful translation mistake. In a speech about renewable energy he said that the world had to act upon this diligently. The prince used the word 'chingada' for 'tide'. And that would have been in the whole of Latin America the correct translation, but by chance not so in Mexico." ~ Click picture to have a full size view.
In other words a painful mistake by a royal is multiplied by the national news, maybe to lessen the pain of the prince, who is now not the only one making mistakes.
The start page on the offical web site of the Dutch national news NOS Journaal; click picture above to see and hear the video in Dutch. I will also copy this video for posterity and post it on Youtube... if it is not there already.
Mexican television rendering of the same event… most polite, but they would not let go the opportunity to have some fun with the Dutch ‘klompen-diplomacy’ (wooden shoet diplomacy of the Dutch).
===========
(*)
- Algemeen Dagblad: “Voor het woord getij - ‘corriente’ – gebruikte hij echter het woord ‘chingada’. ‘Chingada’ betekent ‘naar de kloten gaan’ of ‘je wordt verneukt’. In heel Zuid-Amerika is chingada ingeburgerd in het dagelijkse taalgebruik. Alleen uitgerekend in Mexico heeft het een grove lading. // Een Argentijn – niet prinses Máxima – die de prins hielp met zijn speech, was daarvan niet op de hoogte. Het voor de toespraak verantwoordelijke ministerie van Economische Zaken heeft de prins inmiddels excuses aangeboden. Het ministerie laat weten dat de speech van de prins door een van haar medewerkers is voorbereid op en dus ook de verantwoordelijkheid is van dit departement. De dubbele betekenis van de uitdrukking is ,,helaas” niet doorzien, aldus de zegsman.”
- RTL-Nieuws: “Hij dacht een Mexicaanse uitdrukking te gebruiken: ‘een slapende garnaal wordt meegenomen door het getij’. Voor het woord getij gebruikt hij ‘chingada’. // Dat woord betekent in heel Zuid-Amerika getij, maar uitgerekend in Mexico heeft het een andere lading. Het Mexiaanse publiek hoorde de prins zeggen dat de garnaal ‘naar de klote gaat’. Hij had eigenlijk ‘corriente’ moeten zeggen. // Chingada is in Mexico straattaal voor neuken, verneukt of naar de kloten gaan.”
- Joop.nl (een nieuw blog gelieerd aan de VARA dat het nieuws zegt kritisch te gaan volgen wist het niet verder te brengen dan dit: “Camaron que se duerme, se lo lleva la chingada” betekent namelijk niet dat “de garnaal die slaapt, wordt meegenomen door het getij” (wat de prins vermoedelijk probeerde te zeggen), maar dat die garnaal “naar de klote gaat”. Zijn toehoorders kunnen er in ieder geval hartelijk om lachen.”
- NRC/Handelsblad heeft wel wat meer onderzoek gedaan, en weet de bron van de tekst juist te duiden maar komt niet toe aan de culturele betekenis van het woord en de moeilijk te verklaren keuze van de Argentijnse vertaler: “Milenio en Excélsior, twee landelijke dagbladen, zetten de woorden van de prins op de voorpagina. „De prins van Nederland spreekt tot het Mexicaanse volk.” In de krant Reforma werd niet uitgesloten dat de prins een bekende tequilabar in Mexico-Stad had bezocht. „Of iemand heeft een grap met hem uitgehaald, of de prins van Nederland wilde zijn boodschap duidelijk overbrengen. // Geen improvisatie // De prins improviseerde niet, maar sprak een door het Nederlandse ministerie van Economische Zaken geschreven toespraak uit, zo liet dit departement gisteren weten. Volgens het ministerie, waarvan bewindsvrouwe Maria van der Hoeven (CDA) eveneens bij de bijeenkomst aanwezig was, is de betreffende tekstschrijver een Argentijn, die de expliciete betekenis van chingada niet zou hebben gekend.”
(**) The labyrinth of solitude: and the other Mexico by Octavio Paz
(***) Feminism, nation and myth: La Malinche By Rolando Romero; 2005 p.146
(****) A dictionary of Mexican American proverbs By Mark Glazer; page xv
De Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst (RVD) dreigt het persbureau Associated Press met een kort geding, omdat AP foto’s heeft verspreid van een vakantievierend prinselijk paar. Deze foto’s zijn vrij vergaarde beelden buiten de door de RVD georchestreerde persmomenten en volgens de Rijks Voorlichtingsdienst vormen zulke beelden een aantasting van de persoonlijke levenssfeer van leden van het Nederlandse Koningshuis. In mijn persoonlijke levenssfeer wordt ik sinds een halve eeuw hinderlijk geconfronteerd met door de RVD opgedrongen persrepresentaties van het het doen en laten van het Huis van Oranje. Ik pleit er voor om de zichtbaarheid van de constitutionele monarchie tot een minimum terug te brengen. Weinigen zullen de door de RVD gesanctioneerde koekhappende prinsen en met een ruikertje getooide koningin bij weer een andere routine-opening missen. Low-profile koningschap is niet alleen meer in lijn met de principes van een constitutionele monarchie, maar biedt ook meer veiligheid voor de Oranjes, omdat overspannen lieden – zoals Kartsen T. – hen minder tot mogelijk doelwit zullen weten te kiezen. Dat bespaart dan weer op de koningschapkosten en dat past goed in deze crisistijd van broekriemaanhalen en vakantie in eigen land. Voor hen die de glorie van het eigen bestaan onvoldoende is en zich willen vergelustigen in wat de 21e eeuw nog aan erfelijk koningschapsuitingen te bieden heeft zijn er meer dan voldoende privé initiatieven om aan hun trekken te komen.
Het parlementair krakeel over de ongewenste deelname van Prins Willem Alexander aan de Raad van Commissarissen van De Nederlandse Bank, waarbij van behoudend christelijk tot op-papier-revolutionair partijen als de SP zich allen zorgen maken over de goede naam en faam van de kroonprins, is onlogisch.
Immers die positie bij de bank is door God gegegeven, waarom wordt dat door niemand herkent? Beatrix wist het in haar 25 jarig jubileum interview voor de staats tv de NOS – dat vast en zeker bewaard is – duidelijk te zeggen, haar taak was een goddelijke…
Niet de minister-president, maar God is dus de uiteindelijke verantwoordelijke. Wie de beëdigings- en inhuldigingsceremonie – per nieuwe vorst – in de Nieuwe Kerk van Amsterdam goed bekijkt ziet daar dan ook de handelingen die de goddelijke overdracht van verantwoordelijkheid bevestigen: “Zo waarlijk helpe mij God almachtig!” en al de volksvertegenwoordigers beamen dat vervolgens. Een goede heerser is geen manager, een goede heerser krijgt inzicht van boven. Dit koninklijke deelnemen aan maatschappelijke processen is toch wat de Nederlandse natie wil? En dat goddelijke straalt ook – niet zo’n klein beetje – af op de overige leden van het koningshuis. Zo is Prins Constantijn goddelijk bevlogen lid van de Raad van Toezicht van het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. En ik neem aan dat de web-site van het koninklijk huis zo nog meer goddelijke inbreng in de Lage Landen weet bloot te leggen. Alles heel publiek en volstrekt oorbaar.
Inscriptions at the side of Dutch Euro coins "GOD ZIJ MET ONS" (God be with us); this shortened text expands into its Latin origin "Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos" (If God is with us, who shall be against us?). The 18th century Dutch silver and gold trading ducats used to have the inscription "Concordia res parvae crescent" which expands into the Latin syaing "Concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur" with a possible translation like "The smallest things grow because of unity, the largest things fall apart because of disunity." ~ Gaius Sallustius Crispus (Sallust)
Het randschrift van de jammerlijk verloren gegane Nederlandse munt, de gulden, liet dat nog duidelijk zien: “GOD ZIJ MET ONS” een korte samenvatting van “Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos” (Zo God met ons is, wie zal tegen ons zijn). Dat met ons zijn van God behoeft een boodschapper en de rol van ‘goddelijke boodschapper’ is een moeilijke taak. Het huis van Oranje heeft zich in die taak sinds eeuwen gespecialiseerd. Het is ook in die zin dat Prins Alexander zitting dient te hebben bij de instelling die dat feit middels geslagen munten aan heel het volk openbaart. Dankzij de ijver en het doorzettingsvermogen van minister Zalm van financiën is deze spreuk met de komst van de Euro niet verloren gegaan en nog steeds op de in Nederland geslagen euro-munten (zij het enkel op de 2 Euro exemplaren) te lezen. De Nederlandse Euro draagt ook de beeldtenis van de de regerend monarch. Dat Alexander vooruitlopend op die eer zitting heeft in een overlegkransje van de Nederlandse Bank lijkt me dan ook gerechtvaardigd, al was het enkel om er op tijd bij te zijn om ervoor te zorgen dat zijn beeldtenis naar genoegen gestalte krijgt.
Blijft de vraag wie nu die “ONS” zijn… is het enkel de pluralis majestatis van de monarch, de monarch en zijn/haar familie, of heel het volk dat Goddelijke bescherming geniet? Dan komt natuurlijk ook de vraag of God ‘als wezen’ of als ‘alomaanwezige natuur’ gezien moet worden en als dat laatste het geval is hoe zou het kunnen dat het ‘met God zijn’, iets exclusiefs Nederlands of van de Europese Gemeenschap zou wezen? Nu er pal bij mij om de hoek een standbeeld voor Spinoza opgericht is durf ik wel mijn overtuiging te uiten dat mij het begrip van een niet-exclusieve alomaanwezige God het beste past. Zou het gezien de nu toch wel algemeen doorgedrongen gedachte van het nastrevenswaardig ideaal van een gemenebest van elkaar welgezinde wereldburgers, ook niet beter zijn om bij de troonsbestijging van Willem Alexander een aparte herdenkingsmunt te laten slaan met een oud muntrandschrift dat twee eeuwen terug op de gouden en zilveren handelsducaten van de Republiek der Nederlanden gebruikt werd: “CONCORDIA RES PARVAE CRESCUNT” (in harmonie groeien de kleine dingen) [*]. Dat is nu een goed punt dat De Prins in zijn rol als toezichtbouder van de Nederlandse Bank in kan brengen en door kan drukken. Want voor de kenner is er de rest van het gezegde “discordia maxime dilabuntur” over onenigheid en het bijbehorende maximale falen. Zie dat zijn oude inzichten die – naar wij mogen hopen – nu juist door een koninklijke commissaris in deze tijd van globale financieële crisis ingebracht kunnen worden.
* De volledige Latijns spreuk luidt: “Concordia res parvae crescent, discordia maxime dilabuntur” en de mogelijke vertalingen lopen nogal uiteen. Mijn interpretatie zou zijn: Eendracht doet het kleine groeien, de grootste zaken vallen uiteen door onenigheid. Voor het eerste deel wordt dikwijl ”Eendracht maakt macht” gebruikt, maar dat lijkt me onjuist, ergens moet toch het begrip groeien terugkomen.
It was a few days after the tragic drama on Queens-Day in the city of Apeldoorn on April 30th 2009 that the Dutch prince Constantijn fulfilled one of his official duties as patron of World Press Photo and handed the WWP 2008 prize to American photographer Anthony Suau during a ceremony in Het Muziekgebouw in Amsterdam.
The winning photograph depicts Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department detective Robert Kole with his gun ensuring that the residents have fully moved out of their home, after a mortgage foreclosure and eviction. The photograph appeared in Time Magazine as a part of a story on the U.S. economy in crisis. Anthony Suau took this picture on March 26, 2008, during a two day ride-along with a sheriff’s officer and describes how he experienced these two reportage days: “Every second I was there [in Cleveland, I was walking into another moment of human tragedy (...) I worked from morning to night in that place and there was never a moment's rest."
In the February 13 issue of Photo District News (PDN), a professional photographer magazine, the difficulties of Suau to get the story published and his own continuous struggle as a social engaged photographer to find assignments and commissions are described in detail.
The Prince started of his speech with a reference to the assault of a car driver steering straight through a festive crowd awaiting a special open bus, in which he and the rest of the royal family were standing and waving during Queens-Day parade in Apeldoorn. If the driver of the car -Karsten T. - was aiming at the royal family, or if he was committing public self murder choosing the royals as witnesses, are only two, of possible more, interpretations of the event, resulting in the death of seven bystanders, several wounded and the end of the life of the assaulter. Karsten T. missed his alleged target by far and bumped into the iron frame around a stone monument next to a crossroad almost at the same moment the royal bus appeared at the crossing from another direction. Police sources were surprisingly quick in spreading the news that the assaulter - however badly wounded he was - still had enough wits to state or confess that the queen or royals were his actual targets. These police sources failed - and fail till today - to give any details on how this last statement of the assaulter had been taken and by whom. The whole case is still under investigation, but already the same day circumstantial details became known: Karsten T. had lost his job; could not afford the rent of his house anymore; had informed the house owner he was leaving and would give back the key of the house the next day. Karsten T. most probably had no other place to stay, nowhere to go, did not want his parents to know about his dire situation... In other words he was a desperate man ready for a desperate act.
Let us listen now to Prince Constantijn. He had instructed the State Press Service (RVD) that in his speech during the award ceremonial of World Press Photo a brief statement on how he had experienced the Apeldoorn drama a few days before, so he was assured of a full press coverage. (I have taken these lines from the web site of the Dutch Royal family to be sure that no deformation of what was said by the prince may occur):
Excellencies, dear guests,
As the tragic events in Apeldoorn are so fresh on our minds, please allow me the opportunity to say a few words. First and foremost, our thoughts are with the people whose loved ones have been torn away so suddenly, and with those who were injured. The images keep passing before my eyes, and the sounds echo in my ears. There is no "why"; no reasoning; there is only devastation and a useless, tragic loss of life. A senseless, horrific act ripping apart lives, shocking a nation, which feels like an attack on much that is dear to the Dutch as represented in Queen's Day: a joyfulness that is inclusive, open, unifying, friendly and innocent, which I hope ultimately will remain intact.
Tomorrow is Remembrance Day in the Netherlands; the day on which we remember not to forget. We retell the stories and review the powerful images that have become part of our collective memories. These photos have captured our past and continue to do so for the future. Photography has certain advantages over film, as it is easier to store and review. Moreover, we need these 'stills' to project the news into, to have a peg from which we can hang our own memories and associations.
Photo 1) Apeldoorn 30 of April 2009: a photograph that did appear in the international press, a complex picture with two (press) photographers being halted or interrupted in their trade right after the moment that Karsten T. crashed into the monument (with frieze pictures of the grandmother and father of Queen Beatrix visible), while in the open bus in the background the actual Dutch queen Beatrix (red costume and hat) can be seen. This picture must have been made with a tele-lens which gives the wrong impression of the royal bus being very close to the monument and crashed car. This photograph is also taken at a short while after the car has crashed into the monument, A the moment of impact the royal bus was starting to make a curve and arriving at the crossing. I added a red arrow that points at Prince Constantijn in the bus. The policeman at the left with the blue shirt seems to grab for his pistol and one wonders why he is doing so. In the available pictures and videos of the Apeldoorn drama in the press and on the Internet I could not find any policeman or security officer grabbing or pointing a gun during the short moment of the deadly trajectory of the assault car. It looks as if the policeman in the blue shirt tries to halt the photographing activity of the man with the light blue shirt and many camera's. The guys with the suits must be security officers of the royal family.
This picture is possibly made by Albert Nieboer a photographer specialized in documenting royals and did a.o. appear in the New York Times.
“A peg from which we can hang our own memories and associations” says Constantijn and it made me wonder why he fails to make the obvious association, linking the subject of the winning World Press photograph of Anthony Suau with the pictures of the Apeldoorn drama, in which – he himself – even played a role. Both photographed scenes have a hidden story, from the pictures alone we can not derive what really happened. The modern spectator is supposed to be an active member of ’media society’ and its connotations, at least that has been the opinion of the World Press Photo jury, they take it for granted that connotations of a news photograph are actively gathered by the public: newspaper headlines and associated pictures; emblematic television news visuals; the promises of advertisements and its friction with what is experienced as reality; repetitious cross referencing between texts and images. The ravaged house with the policeman and his pistol about to enter a door – to another room – in full concentration, can not be recognized as a house where the owner has been forced to leave because of failure to pay the mortgage as a result of the financial crisis, let alone that the viewer of this picture could know, that the house only had been vandalized after the owner had left, and that there was some evidence that the vandals had taken a weapon from the house, which explains the pistol in hand search as photographed by Suau. There is a subtext to news images, be it the post eviction photograph of a house in the USA or pictures taken of the Queens-Day drama in Apeldoorn.
Quiet a lot of circumstantial information is needed to get in the real meaning of the photograph. For the jury members of World Press Photo these hidden meanings gave the picture an extra value, as chair MaryAnne Golon said: “The strength of the picture is in its opposites. It’s a double entendre. It looks like a classic conflict photograph, but it is simply the eviction of people from a house following foreclosure. Now war in its classic sense is coming into people’s houses because they can’t pay their mortgages.”
“Double entendre”, two ways to understand it says WPP jury member Golon, pointing at the figure of speech derived from the French whereby there is a twist to the obvious. One needs to read below the surface “go to the root of the problem” as prince Constantijn says in his speech when he comes to the moment where he directly speaks about the photograph that out of 96,268 pictures send in, won the contest. Is this the same prince who in the opening statement of his World Press Photo speech refers to his own involvement in a drama, only a few days ago, saying: “The images keep passing before my eyes, and the sounds echo in my ears. There is no “why”; no reasoning; there is only devastation and a useless, tragic loss of life.” Does Constantijn not read any newspapers, does he not look at the television news, does he not check the internet? He has studied law, works now for the Brussels office of the American ‘think thank’ organization RAND, so one supposes he is generally speaking, an informed man. Why does he not give one word to the publicly known facts – as anybody knows them today – that the ‘root of the problem’ can be found in a personal crisis of a man who had no job anymore and who could – most probably – not even afford to pay the rent of a non-luxury apartment. How is it possible that a few minutes before he will describe “the particular type of war zone” that Suau has depicted, he typifies the context in which the drama of Apeldoorn enfolded as a Dutch expression of “joyfulness that is inclusive, open, unifying, friendly and innocence”? Where is his imagination? However uncomfortable it may be for a royal to acknowledge, there was a “why”, there has been “a reasoning” – if only in the mind of Karsten T. – which led to the assault, public self-killing or some other explanation for his deed which still is to be found. The “inclusive joyfulness” of a Dutch Queens Day parade may even have been the actual trigger for Karsten T., may well have been ‘at the root of the problem’.
My guess is that Constantijn does not lack imagination. He is intelligent enough to somehow guess how such dramatic strings of events may be triggered, but being straightjacketed in the strictly organized Dutch royal family – even though he is only fifth reserve king in line – he can and he will, say nothing meaningful. His “memories and associations” will be hidden from us. Active self-censorhip is his trade. In the privacy of his home there may be several “pegs” on which pictures are hung with his own memories and associations. One of the pictures maybe this one showing his brother Willem Alexander and his sister in law Maxima clasping their hands on their mouths in bewilderment. Constantijn himself is only partly visible in this picture, that may tell – in World Press Photo aesthetics – in its simplicity the story better than the complex scenery of the Apeldoorn 1) photograph in this post.
Photo 2 Apeldoorn 30 of April 2009: Maxima clamps her one hand on the railing of the bus and the other over her mouth and nostrils, as she watches the totally unexpected terrible scene in front of her; Willem Alexander is captured with his mouth visible through his fingers in an inelegant way, one of the rare moments were his trained official mask has fallen of; the hand over mouse gesture can be seen as a subconscious gesture that indicates that a person is perplexed by what just have been seen or heard, also to stop oneself from shouting; their eyes survey the disastrous scenery but also seem to be turned inward, thoughts racing through their minds, "was this aimed at us?"; feelings of empathy also, seeing the sprawled victims on the pavement and people rushing up to help them; dismay as well, because this act brutally puts an end to what Prince Constantijn described as "joyful", "friendly" and "innocent"; Willem Alexander and Maxima see the crashed car and must have asked themselves what the motive of the car driver could have been, including flashes of their public role and, apparently, not being loved by everybody; thoughts how this will effect their personal life and how it relates to their public role in the future. Curious is that the face of the one policeman that can be seen in full profile looks the other way, as if he has not seen what has just happened and it is a face without any sign of having witnessed a disaster; it could be that as the policemen stand lower and their view is blocked by people in front of them; also a strong tele-lens must have been used drawing together what in reality is far apart; nobody is seen in a pose of shrinking back from an approaching danger, or pulling themselves together after such an automatic body gesture of fear; the overall impression is that of spectators in shock and awe.
The pictures above appeared on a website of Daylife.com, that relates it to Reuter, but there are other agencies that have what seems to be a similar photograph, most probably a cut-out of this picture; that one is ascribed to the Dutch photographer Patrick van Katwijk (possibly related to dutchphotopress that has a set of pictures of what they call “Queensday Accident” which carries yet another link to Monarchy Press Europe (these two last agencies seem to be specialized in photographing royals).
There is a very long tradition of patronage of the arts by royals and artists and intellectuals under royal protection are not necessarily total uncritical supporters of a ruling power. Famous example is the Spanish painter Goya who had four kings as his patron, including a foreign occupying king (one of the brothers of Napoleon) and who combined big painting commissions for the aristocracy with - on the side – graphical works with biting social criticism. Goya’s well known works on the horrors of war depict the national Spanish rising against the French occupationand as such fitted the Spanish royal ‘canon’. Czarina Catherina II of Russia entertained foreign critical minds like Voltaire at her court, but merciless prosecuted local intellectuals with enlightened ideas like the writer Alexander Radishchev (influenced by Rousseau) who was send to a Siberian exile and later committed suicide. There is evidence that the French King Louis XIV wanted to invite Spinoza to his court, in the period that French armies had occupied half of the Dutch Republic, but the ‘caute’ (cautiousness) of this radical philosopher made him rightly refuse that offer. Somewhat later on John Locke who had been in opposition to the catholic monarchy of England found a refuge in the Netherlands where he published his work on Tolerance (Epistola de Tolerantia), eleaborated on his ideas about “ultimate sovereignty of the people”, and joined forces with the Dutch Prince William of Orange III, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which made the British isles a constitutional kingdom under the reign of a Dutch prince.
When it comes of patronage or support of critical intellectuals and artists, there is always some form of interest from the point of view of a king or aristocrat, to do so. The late husband of Queen Beatrix and the father of Prince Constantijn, Prince Claus has left as a legacy a foundation that supports “culture and development” directing its activities mainly at what the foundation publications (still) calls “The Third World”. One of the recent spearpoints of this patronage is the program “Creating Spaces of Freedom” directed at “people who are oppressed or who express opinions that differ from the general consensus.” The publication on this specific project of the Prince Claus Fund classifies its support aim clearly: “defiant culture”, which means ‘boldly resisting authority or an opposing force.’ A publication on this subject supported by the fund, summarizes its intent, to look at “the role of art in places where subversion is the only way to challenge the status quo.” So the patronage of the Dutch royals maybe conservative at home and at the same time most radical in ‘far away countries’. Though, there is a policy of some local critical intellectuals being invited for cultural events where the royals give acte de présence, and even anti-monarchist may be invited for a palace or other royal events, with names ranging from Peter Schat (once prosecuted for being involved in a lèse majesté cartoon case depicting the mother of Beatrix, Juliana, as a Dutch whore sitting in a window (with her yearly salary as a price tag) or lateley during National Remembrance Day on May 4. 2009, a speech – attended by the royals- by Wim de Bie, a Dutch comedian who has masterminded (together with Kees van Koten) over the last decades several television sketches poking jokes at the Queen and her extravaganza.
Must this particular Dutch policy of royal patronage of the arts be seen in a Marcusian sense as a form of “repressive tolerance” (Herbert Marcuse “Repressive Tolerance” 1965) ? Or is such a traditional left-wing branding too easy: “what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.” Can there be still a creative and liberating role for hereditary queens and princes in the 21st. century? The royal family and Prince Constantijn had a shocking experience: “The images keep passing before my eyes, and the sounds echo in my ears”, said the prince, but when he further deliberates on this dramatic subject his imagination is not only poor, it is a void.
If the role of patron of the competition World Press Photo would have been the only public function of this prince, I would not have even written this exposé, what alarmed me is that recently I did read a newspaper announcement in which I could read that Prince Constantijn had been installed as a board member of the Supervison Council (Raad van Toezicht) of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (Museum of Modern Art Amsterdam). The press release has hardly any information except the fact that the prince “has a lot of experience in European and international governance” and also that “his liking of modern art makes him an extra good candidate for this position.” The Stedelijk Museum is a municipal museum, the municipality is formally governed by a municipal council that is democratically elected. This policy of nominating new members of a public governing body by co-optation is a shocking undemocratic act. Patronage of the arts thus becomes a form of Paternalism.
The State Press Service (RVD) choose this photograph of Prince Constantijn to go with the news item on his Stedelijk Museum Supervising Board membership, beginning of April 2009.
It would lead too far to detail now how the other members of this “Super-vision Council” of the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam opted in and out, but for the non-locals of Amsterdam it may be interesting to know that at the same time that Prince Constantijn moves in, the chairman of the council has moved out. And… who is this chairman? Rijkman Groenink, former director of the ABN/AMRO Bank who has made a reputation for himself by his adventurous banking and the demise of Fortis and the whole string of other banks involved in the construction of the economic crisis we live today, a man who managed to leave the sinking ship, that his bank had become, with an extravagant personal bonus. Maybe Constantijn will also peg a picture of banker Rijkman Groenink (in Dutch, his first name means literal ‘rich man’) on his wall and refresh his memories and let his imagination provide the manifold associations with this picture.
At a most public moment, the opening of the Freedom-Day festival on 5 of May 2009 in Zwolle , Dutch prime-minister Balkenende claimed that the attack on April 30 in Apeldoorn was a an assault on the royal family. These are the words of Balkenende broadcasted on Dutch television news on that day:
“This moment also we think back at last week thursday, at our queen and the members of the royal family, because the assault was directed at them.”
This is said while several independent official investigations into the incident have been announced with the results to be made public in June this year. How is it possible that in a constitutional state, like the Netherlands, which claims to have independent courts and juridical procedures, a prime minister gives his personal opinion on a criminal act (The Karsten T. incident) at such a public ceremonial moment? He has created a situation whereby investigators and judges will be hampered in their tasks, because they may be forced to either contradict or approve the minister-president of the country on this case. The regular behavior in such case by members of the parliament is that they say “I will not” or “I can not comment on something that is still in the hands of the court.” What we observe here is in fact unconstitutional behavior of the highest ranking politician of our country in a clumsy attempt to strengthen the constitutional monarchy. As the incident with Karsten T. can be explained in several ways and where doubts exist if it really was an assault on the royal family or not, such a statement may in the end weaken the position of the royal house and the victimhood which has for political reasons been imposed on them.
The broadcasted text spoken by Balkenende in Dutch was:
“Ook nu denken wij terug aan vorige week donderdag aan onze koningin en de leden van de koninklijke familie, want de aanslag was op hen gericht.”
Oranjelol (Orange Jinks!) is getting drunk publicly in support of the royal House of Orange, a yearly event in the Netherlands on April the 30th. This quick & dirty collage is made on ‘the day after’ the first of May, having seen the workmen cleaning the mass of debris left by the partying crowd in the center of Amsterdam, where I happen to live. The picture elements are from left to right: a drawing published in 1894 in the October issue of an early socialist paper “De Roode Duivel” (the red devil) by Louis Hermans (1861 – 1943) and reads: “Famous Temporaries: Lady Ka Flower Pot from Utrecht preparing herself for an Orange Jink (on the table a bottle of a cheap liqueur called ‘Orange Bitter’); next a mix of two Flickr photo-reportage pictures from the yearly Queens party on the Magere Brug (meagre bridge) over the Amstel river in Amsterdam with a drunken crowd and a blasting disco (2007; the parties look the same each year so why bother to find one for 2009?). Commentary in 1894 by Hermans on the Orange craze and the success of the Dutch new royals (the Kingdom has been established by Von Metternich’s Wiener Congress in 1814): “..an astonishing success, which can be understood easily because most members of the thinking part’ of the nation have as much brains in their head as the ass of the devil.”
The systematic policy of constant centering public attention on herself and her family by the Dutch Queen – who firmly believes “her task” is a godgiven one – showed yesterday (April 30 2009) its mirror side in the unwanted attention of a suicidal man who performed his yet unclear attack on an Orangist crowd and possibly the royal family – doing their waving from an open bus during a royal entry into the city of Apeldoorn. On the same day drunken crowds swarmed the street and canals of Amsterdam. In spite of the speed of news of modern media the public display of pleasure went on for several hours after the alleged attentat; the happy crowd wanted their party first of all. For the non Dutch – this alcoholistic euphoria is only a new tradition which has developed during the reign of Queen Beatrix starting in the mid eighties when supporters of the national football team manifested their support more and more through their public drinking habbits and dressing up in all sorts of orange paraphernalia. Critical distance as existed during the sixties and seventies toward a system of a hereditary kingdom, slowly evaporated. This was caused by the creation of a national football fever during international competitions: clad in orange and fed by endless amounts of beer. Commercial interests from beer companies and bar-owners combined with the acclaim of local authorities for this new Dutch nationalism which for them seemed to be a way out of the antagonizing effects of the multi-cultural society of the Netherlands. The partying under the orange banner seems to reunite what has been broken up.
A new national consciousness without any real political content, purely based on having a jolly good time together. When one observes the loud orange crowds pouring into the inner city streets of the main towns, one may smell other sentiments: this is suburbia taking over the city, you better join in and be happy with them and you better do not show any disapproval of the bad behaviour of throwing debris, public pissing, and shouting. I have not yet seen statistics on which percentage of the crowd is just merry and mellow and whether the aggressive ones are a mere minority. My impression is that the same group of persons may cycle during the day through all this behavioural stages depending on their intake of drugs, food and level of endurance during their pleasure drifting between the ultra loud music stages spread all over town. Just over half a million orange party-goers left thousands of kilos of tins, broken bottles and plastic cups all over town. Bar owners and free tstreet traders have made their big buck and leave their debris to the municipal workmen. Like real royals the orangist crowd have partied and left their shit behind for the servants to clean up. That is today the first of May, indeed a sad sight: orange Jinks!.
V
