...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Genocide Research >The killing of Dutch and Eurasians in Indonesia's national revolution (1945-49): a ‘brief genocide’ reconsidered
【24h】

The killing of Dutch and Eurasians in Indonesia's national revolution (1945-49): a ‘brief genocide’ reconsidered

机译:在印度尼西亚的民族革命(1945-49年)中杀死荷兰人和欧亚人:重新考虑了“简短的种族灭绝”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the histories of decolonizations after World War II, the targeting of European and, particularly, mixed-blood populations by indigenous peoples has been neglected or avoided altogether. A case in point is Indonesia's struggle for independence from Dutch rule (1945-49). In a rare treatment of this topic, Robert Cribb recently described the killings of Dutch and Eurasians in the last months of 1945 as constituting a genocide, albeit a ‘brief’ one, the first time that term had been used with reference to what Dutch sources spoke of as the bersiaptijd (loosely, a time of danger) and Indonesian sources rarely mentioned at all. Cribb's approach generalized broadly about the killings. It concentrated instead on offering a general explanation, which he found not in colonial policy or Indonesian nationalism but, on the whole, in a ‘constructed’ racial tension and an explosive, bottom-up mobism. Detailed information from East Java's experience, however, suggests rather different and far more complex causes, among them various effects of both Dutch and Japanese colonial rule, and racial tensions inherent in Indonesian nationalism. The East Javanese case highlights the extended and often extreme nature of the violence against Dutch and Eurasians, and emphasizes that it must also be seen in the complicating context of violence against Chinese and other Indonesians (not covered here in extenso). A reconsideration of Cribb's treatment suggests that use of the term ‘genocide’ for the killing of Dutch and Eurasians in revolutionary Indonesia may not be thought warranted from a ‘scientific’ or legal perspective, and that efforts to encompass this sort of decolonization violence with terms such as ‘subaltern genocide’ are still fraught with difficulties. Still, ‘genocide’ used in a generic, common-sense fashion draws attention to a hidden episode of horrific violence, and further study may be of use to scholars of decolonization and genocide in general, as well as Indonesia specialists and Indonesians themselves.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2012.719370
机译:在第二次世界大战后的非殖民化历史上,土著人民针对欧洲人特别是混血人口的目标已被忽略或完全避免了。印度尼西亚争取独立于荷兰统治(1945-49年)的斗争就是一个很好的例子。罗伯特·克里布(Robert Cribb)在对该主题的罕见处理中,最近将1945年最后几个月内荷兰人和欧亚人的杀戮描述为种族灭绝,尽管这是一次“简短”的种族灭绝,这是该词首次用于提及荷兰的消息来源称其为“ bersiaptijd”(轻松地处于危险时刻),而印度尼西亚消息源则很少提及。克里布的方法广泛地适用于谋杀。相反,它集中于提供一般性的解释,他不是在殖民政策或印度尼西亚民族主义中发现,而是整体上是在“构造的”种族紧张局势和爆炸性的自下而上的黑社会主义中发现的。然而,从东爪哇省的经验中获得的详细信息表明,原因却截然不同且复杂得多,其中包括荷兰和日本殖民统治的各种影响以及印度尼西亚民族主义固有的种族紧张局势。东爪哇人的案子突出了针对荷兰人和欧亚人的暴力行为的广泛性和极端性,并强调在对华人和其他印尼人的暴力行为复杂的情况下也必须看到这一点(此处未作广泛介绍)。对克里布的待遇的重新考虑表明,从“科学”或法律的角度来看,可能不认为使用“种族灭绝”一词来杀死革命印尼中的荷兰人和欧亚人,并且为此做出了努力诸如“次种族灭绝”之类的非殖民化暴力仍然充满困难。尽管如此,以一般常识的方式使用的“种族灭绝”还是引起人们注意隐藏的恐怖暴力事件,进一步研究可能对非殖民化和种族灭绝的学者以及印尼专家和印尼人有用它们自己。 -4dff56cd6bb1830b“};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2012.719370

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号