ND 17 oktober, quote econoom Arjo Klamer: "Het kabinet is hard bezig Nederland uit de economische crisis te leiden. De echte crisis is echter onze onhoudbare cultuur gericht op geld en economische groei."
Hiermee zullen de meer milieubewusten en de kritische politicologen en economen onder ons het waarschijnlijk wel mee eens zijn. Het valt echter op dat er een paradox schuilt in deze uitspraak. Aan de ene kant doet het kabinet haar best, wat positief gewaardeerd wordt; aan de andere kant zitten we gevangen in een cultuur van geld en verrijking.
Wat echter opvalt, bijvoorbeeld in het DSB debacle, is het feit dat juist een deel van de politieke elite niet alleen deel is van deze cultuur, maar deze cultuur uitdraagt.
Opvallend genoeg zijn het voormalige bewindslieden zoals Gerrit Zalm, Frank de Grave en Robin Linschoten die de DSB en daarmee DSB praktijken dienden. Dit is te meer opvallend bij Zalm die kritisch was over DSB tijdens zijn ministerschap. Bovendien vertrok hij als hoofdeconoom bij de DSB Bank om een groot deel van de Nederlandse financi?le sector uit het slop te trekken, Fortis en ABN Amro.
De verleiding is groot te wijzen op het feit dat de VVD hofleverancier lijkt te zijn voor DSB topmannen. Te vrezen valt, dat de cultuur van verrijking, geldverstrekking en ongeremde groei verder strekt dan een enkele partij.
In aanvulling op een economische en een culturele crisis, zou ik daarom stellen dat wij ook te maken hebben met een derde, politiek-bestuurlijke, crisis. Veel politieke bewindslieden en bewindslieden in spe, zijn gepokt en gemazeld onder een nieuw-rechtse economische gesternte, of een variant daarvan: derde-weg socialisme ('paars'). Is er reden om aan te nemen dat juist deze politieke voorhoede haar eigen politiek-economische paradigma's kan ontstijgen en Nederland economisch, politiek en cultureel uit het slop kan trekken?
Sydney Rittenberg 'China not a Land of Darkness'
Wiki: ***Sidney Rittenberg (August 14, 1921; Chinese name: L? D?nb?i ???) is an American interpreter and scholar who lived in China from 1944 to 1979. He worked closely with People's Republic of China (PRC) founder Mao Zedong, military leader Zhu De, and key statesman Zhou Enlai, and other leaders of the Communist party during the war, and was the only American citizen to join the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He was with these central Communist leaders at Yan'an and was able to experience much of the life of Mao and his supporters. Later, he was imprisoned in solitary confinement twice, for a total of 16 years. He witnessed first-hand much of what occurred at upper levels of the CCP and knew many of its leaders personally.****
YESTERDAY I attended a brunch lecture by Sydney Rittenberg, organized by the Yale Club in Beijing. Reflecting on the political institutions of the US and China, he stated that he is 'against a multiparty system tomorrow' in China. He also criticized the American two party monopoly, and the rule of big money ('no one gets to be candidate without getting his primaries financed'). Therefore, the US does not provide much of a blueprint for China's democratization. When the US congressmen speak about 'the need for China to democratize', Rittenberg asks: 'and how did you get here? ? Nobody has the right to point the finger and tell China what to do, a country that has achieved so much'.
In regard to democracy in China, Rittenberg observes that the 'Chinese have never in history been freer than today' in terms of individual freedom. However, there's a need for deeper understanding of 'democratic management'. This should include better protection of lawyers and journalists who expose corruption, but also free debate. He contends the popular Chinese opinion that free debate leads to chaos, rather the opposite is the case: free debate acts as a 'safety valve' and prevents chaos. Recent government reforms seem to be encouraging according to Rittenberg. For instance, the election of local government officials now requires consultation of non-CP locals, although there is still vetting by higher officials. However, this some questions remain, for instance, how to prevent the capture of politics by local lead families or dominant business. This question is also relevant at other levels of governance, the Communist Party is constantly concerned over dominant (business) factions to catch the leadership.
Rittenberg also addressed the problems with corruption in China. According to Rittenberg, one must distinct different kinds of corruption, some corruption is like the mafia, others are forms of corruption are a 'necessary' outcome of holes in the governance system. Some corruption serves legitimate purposes, for instance when officials pay surcharge on coal supplies to keep factories running and in so doing save employment. At the same time it is encouraging to see that the government is holding campaigns in big cities to fight corruption. But since corruption is systematic, it will take a long time to redress, it is 'the way that thing are done: it will take a long time, it will probably take the elevation of the economic system.'
Apart from Rittenberg?s opions about today?s China, we also learned about his unique past experience. Asked about his opinion about Chairman Mao, Rittenberg recalls his meetings with Mao; how Mao would listen attentively and learn from the younger Rittenberg about the United States. He remembers the young Mao as a genius, pragmatic, humble and a good listener. However, citing the official stance that Mao did 70% good, Rittenberg also regrets the fact that Mao experimented with the lives of hundreds of millions during the Great Leap Forward. This is Mao's fault, as he deemed himself great enough to experiment with so many lives, but it was also a systematic fault; by the time of the GLF leaders were too isolated from the rest of the populace. Rittenberg was imprisoned from 1949-55, falsely accused for being a spy. From 1968 to 1977, Rittenberg was again imprisoned, for his supposed criticism and activism agains the dictatorship and bureaucracy. When asked where he got the inspiration and energy to make it through so much hardship, Rittenberg jokingly answers 'perhaps stupidity'. However, he also experienced the power of forgiveness and healing, it is impossible to live with bitterness, to do so would be to lose.
Rittenberg ended his presentation by a call for better relations between the US and China. 'If I could ask God for one thing in this world, it would be good US-China relations... the core of the world working together is US-China relations.' Turning to the audience, mostly Americans, he encouraged them to 'spread knowledge, to let people know: China is not a land of darkness.'
YESTERDAY I attended a brunch lecture by Sydney Rittenberg, organized by the Yale Club in Beijing. Reflecting on the political institutions of the US and China, he stated that he is 'against a multiparty system tomorrow' in China. He also criticized the American two party monopoly, and the rule of big money ('no one gets to be candidate without getting his primaries financed'). Therefore, the US does not provide much of a blueprint for China's democratization. When the US congressmen speak about 'the need for China to democratize', Rittenberg asks: 'and how did you get here? ? Nobody has the right to point the finger and tell China what to do, a country that has achieved so much'.
In regard to democracy in China, Rittenberg observes that the 'Chinese have never in history been freer than today' in terms of individual freedom. However, there's a need for deeper understanding of 'democratic management'. This should include better protection of lawyers and journalists who expose corruption, but also free debate. He contends the popular Chinese opinion that free debate leads to chaos, rather the opposite is the case: free debate acts as a 'safety valve' and prevents chaos. Recent government reforms seem to be encouraging according to Rittenberg. For instance, the election of local government officials now requires consultation of non-CP locals, although there is still vetting by higher officials. However, this some questions remain, for instance, how to prevent the capture of politics by local lead families or dominant business. This question is also relevant at other levels of governance, the Communist Party is constantly concerned over dominant (business) factions to catch the leadership.
Rittenberg also addressed the problems with corruption in China. According to Rittenberg, one must distinct different kinds of corruption, some corruption is like the mafia, others are forms of corruption are a 'necessary' outcome of holes in the governance system. Some corruption serves legitimate purposes, for instance when officials pay surcharge on coal supplies to keep factories running and in so doing save employment. At the same time it is encouraging to see that the government is holding campaigns in big cities to fight corruption. But since corruption is systematic, it will take a long time to redress, it is 'the way that thing are done: it will take a long time, it will probably take the elevation of the economic system.'
Apart from Rittenberg?s opions about today?s China, we also learned about his unique past experience. Asked about his opinion about Chairman Mao, Rittenberg recalls his meetings with Mao; how Mao would listen attentively and learn from the younger Rittenberg about the United States. He remembers the young Mao as a genius, pragmatic, humble and a good listener. However, citing the official stance that Mao did 70% good, Rittenberg also regrets the fact that Mao experimented with the lives of hundreds of millions during the Great Leap Forward. This is Mao's fault, as he deemed himself great enough to experiment with so many lives, but it was also a systematic fault; by the time of the GLF leaders were too isolated from the rest of the populace. Rittenberg was imprisoned from 1949-55, falsely accused for being a spy. From 1968 to 1977, Rittenberg was again imprisoned, for his supposed criticism and activism agains the dictatorship and bureaucracy. When asked where he got the inspiration and energy to make it through so much hardship, Rittenberg jokingly answers 'perhaps stupidity'. However, he also experienced the power of forgiveness and healing, it is impossible to live with bitterness, to do so would be to lose.
Rittenberg ended his presentation by a call for better relations between the US and China. 'If I could ask God for one thing in this world, it would be good US-China relations... the core of the world working together is US-China relations.' Turning to the audience, mostly Americans, he encouraged them to 'spread knowledge, to let people know: China is not a land of darkness.'
Some notes on EU social democracy from a skype chat with a friend
Germans just ditched the SPD, Spain's PSOE may be voted out, Cameron is waiting...
As Europe is in the middle of an economic crisis, the elections seem to be won by the right. When social needs are up, this seems a paradoxical development. However, it's not necessarily the market conservatives that win (see Holland). Moreover, as governments turn right in the EU, Social Democracy is experiencing its own crisis.
In the midst of a financial crisis, the answers hitherto seem to be even more market en and credit. This doesn't seem like a structural answer. There is a feeling that the solution doesn't lie in another variation to neo-liberalism, thus the neo-liberal middle with third way social democracy at its core, is crumbling. It's not a problem of the left, I think that they gain across Europe. For instance, the left (Linke) actually won in Germany. However, Social Democratic parties have lost their grip and majority over that side of the spectrum.
As Europe is in the middle of an economic crisis, the elections seem to be won by the right. When social needs are up, this seems a paradoxical development. However, it's not necessarily the market conservatives that win (see Holland). Moreover, as governments turn right in the EU, Social Democracy is experiencing its own crisis.
In the midst of a financial crisis, the answers hitherto seem to be even more market en and credit. This doesn't seem like a structural answer. There is a feeling that the solution doesn't lie in another variation to neo-liberalism, thus the neo-liberal middle with third way social democracy at its core, is crumbling. It's not a problem of the left, I think that they gain across Europe. For instance, the left (Linke) actually won in Germany. However, Social Democratic parties have lost their grip and majority over that side of the spectrum.
EU passports for sale
On the www.guardian.co.uk I came across an advertisement by http://www.crownpassport.com/. Who claims to offer "second citizenship, naturalization programs for visa-free travel world wide." They do that by acquiring Latvian passports. As Latvia is an EU member state, and part of the Schengen area, Latvian citizenship will grant access to the rest of Europe. Is this an abuse under the Schengen agreement? Does the Latvian government know about this practice? Does Latvia even profit from this? Latvia is one of the worst hit EU countries in the economic crisis.
Now is the Moment to Invest in Red Textile!
Thank you for your comment on my posts on Facebook and Blogger. Due to ever tightening restrictions on internet access, I can only post, however, I cannot comment on your comments. Nor can I edit posts.
Het RD bericht op 29 september:
"Het landelijk bestuur van de ChristenUnie weigert een afgesproken aanscherping van het beginselprogramma van de partij over homoseksualiteit door te voeren. De afdeling Neder-Betuwe wil het partijbestuur daar alsnog toe dwingen.
Dat blijkt uit de stukken voor het ledencongres dat zaterdag in Zwolle plaatsheeft. Hiermee lijkt de discussie in de partij over homoseksualiteit weer op te laaien.
De afdeling Neder-Betuwe heeft een motie ingediend om in het kernprogramma expliciet de zinsnede op te nemen: ?Daarbij wordt de seksuele omgang onlosmakelijk verbonden gezien met het huwelijk.? Deze passage moet direct volgen op de constatering in het kernprogramma dat het huwelijk een publieke verbintenis is tussen een man en een vrouw. Met de aanvulling wil Neder-Betuwe vastleggen dat de partij voor haar vertegenwoordigers homoseksualiteit afwijst."
De bemoeienis van een politieke partij moet toch niet over deurdrempel van de slaapkamer strekken. En hoe wil de partij een dergelijk beginsel handhaven?
Als deze motie het redt, zou ik willen voorstellen de discussie dan maar te voeren over het huwelijk. Seks binnen het huwelijk? Welk huwelijk, het wettelijk huwelijk (incl. homohuwelijk), het kerkelijk huwelijk of het CU huwelijk? En is de maatstaf voor buitenhuwelijkse seks dezelfde als voorhuwelijkse?
Niemand - hoop ik - die denkt dat de discussie voorbij is na het aannemen van deze anti-homoseksuele motie.
"Het landelijk bestuur van de ChristenUnie weigert een afgesproken aanscherping van het beginselprogramma van de partij over homoseksualiteit door te voeren. De afdeling Neder-Betuwe wil het partijbestuur daar alsnog toe dwingen.
Dat blijkt uit de stukken voor het ledencongres dat zaterdag in Zwolle plaatsheeft. Hiermee lijkt de discussie in de partij over homoseksualiteit weer op te laaien.
De afdeling Neder-Betuwe heeft een motie ingediend om in het kernprogramma expliciet de zinsnede op te nemen: ?Daarbij wordt de seksuele omgang onlosmakelijk verbonden gezien met het huwelijk.? Deze passage moet direct volgen op de constatering in het kernprogramma dat het huwelijk een publieke verbintenis is tussen een man en een vrouw. Met de aanvulling wil Neder-Betuwe vastleggen dat de partij voor haar vertegenwoordigers homoseksualiteit afwijst."
De bemoeienis van een politieke partij moet toch niet over deurdrempel van de slaapkamer strekken. En hoe wil de partij een dergelijk beginsel handhaven?
Als deze motie het redt, zou ik willen voorstellen de discussie dan maar te voeren over het huwelijk. Seks binnen het huwelijk? Welk huwelijk, het wettelijk huwelijk (incl. homohuwelijk), het kerkelijk huwelijk of het CU huwelijk? En is de maatstaf voor buitenhuwelijkse seks dezelfde als voorhuwelijkse?
Niemand - hoop ik - die denkt dat de discussie voorbij is na het aannemen van deze anti-homoseksuele motie.
I can see Tiananmen, so what?
I'm moving into my new apartment tomorrow, from where I can see the rooftops on Tiananmen Square. Great location, huh? I might not be able to enter my own apartment on 1 October though, when China's celebrating the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic. Since I live so close to the military and board flipping parade, my neighbourhood is turned into a high security zone.
Tomorrow I'll go the local police station and see whether I still can obtain a special card to access my own flat.
If I get one I might be one of the lucky foreigners to see the parade.
These days helicopters circle over Beijing and heavily armed military guard university campuses. Even the kitchen knives department at Carrefour is closed.
However, I have not heard a single complaint. It seems like most people are very proud of the PRC's anniversary.
This year's 1 October celebration will feature a show greater than last year's Olympic opening ceremony. Over 200,000 people will march and flip boards. Students at the campus I now live at, have been practicing marching for months... a mass manifestation like never before.
Also, Chinese will enjoy an unprecedented 8 days of national holiday. Imagine the whole of China taking holiday at the same time... To get a train ticket a friend of mine had to stand in line for four hours. And China's airports will be flooded with 150 million passengers in a matter of a few days.
I wonder what international coverage the event will get. It seems to me that the manifestations are especially aimed at Chinese rather than to impress foreigners. Time Magazine has covered the story ('China's Moment'), otherwise I've read little about this in European and American press.
Tomorrow I'll go the local police station and see whether I still can obtain a special card to access my own flat.
If I get one I might be one of the lucky foreigners to see the parade.
These days helicopters circle over Beijing and heavily armed military guard university campuses. Even the kitchen knives department at Carrefour is closed.
However, I have not heard a single complaint. It seems like most people are very proud of the PRC's anniversary.
This year's 1 October celebration will feature a show greater than last year's Olympic opening ceremony. Over 200,000 people will march and flip boards. Students at the campus I now live at, have been practicing marching for months... a mass manifestation like never before.
Also, Chinese will enjoy an unprecedented 8 days of national holiday. Imagine the whole of China taking holiday at the same time... To get a train ticket a friend of mine had to stand in line for four hours. And China's airports will be flooded with 150 million passengers in a matter of a few days.
I wonder what international coverage the event will get. It seems to me that the manifestations are especially aimed at Chinese rather than to impress foreigners. Time Magazine has covered the story ('China's Moment'), otherwise I've read little about this in European and American press.
God, He or She?
For the last half a year or so I found it very difficult to pray, for many reasons. Today it occurred to me that one of the reasons is my doubts over how to address god, as a 'he' or a 'she'.
Perhaps to some this seems a trivial matter. But for me it has become a defining matter. Ultimately, the way we perceive god bears upon our belief systems and our behavior.
The majority of orthodox Christianity retains a patriarchical view of the world. God is addressed as 'Father', 'Lord', and 'He'. However, I cannot but regard all these masculine addresses as a - perhaps weak - representation of own patriarchical thinking. Why would god have a sex anyway? According to the Biblical narrative god doesn't need a sexual counterpart to create. Moreover, some scarce examples in the Bible describe god in a maternal fashion. I therefore conclude that God has no sex and our overwhelmingly masculine addresses are not correct.
Yet, there is another side of me that longs for a god as a father, a masculine type. When I used to pray I would imagine god as a fatherly figure, more than a motherly. It probably has much to do with the way our societies are arranged, where fathers are all too often head of the family - the ones who should be responsible for many (extra-household and long-term) affairs. Where my doubts often lie in things like career or my place in the world, I like to address the masculine god.
When praying, having come to the conclusion that God is not a man, I felt I was constantly making a mistake by addressing god as Lord or Father. I tried to avoid the matter by using words like 'Creator' or 'God'. However, I also perceived my feelings of intimacy all but disappeared. Coupled with negative experiences of Christian conservative views of sex (and the role of sexes) I finally stopped praying.
Having lived in China for almost half a year. Not too regularly visiting Church, I still feel like I am in need of a god who gives meaning to life beyond science, occasional charity and our daily saving and spending. Having rejected the possibility of a masculine god, while being a major step, I do not pretend to better know god. The easy way out would be to reject the 'god-hypothesis'. Though I do mind posing god as an hypothesis (and I am open to the idea that there is no god) I found little reason or perhaps willingness to reject it. But neither would I confirm many of the mainstream assumptions about God and their conclusions (e.g. on sexuality and the role of different sexes). Having an unclear picture of the universe and its presumed god, makes one - who still classifies himself as a christian - quite lonely. So recently I have taken up praying again, sometimes quite shamelessly calling god as Father, assuming that however I address god, it is - or should be - of no consequence.
So at times I will call god 'Father' or 'Lord', but that does not legitimize support or acknowledgement of some patriarchical order. I wholeheartedly object to the assumed leadership of men in church, family, or society. I do not see the moral superiority of masculine dominance, in the same way as I do not see the superiority of feminine dominance. Sexual straight jackets are invariably sexist. In my opinion, this holds true for sexual orientation as well. True, perhaps more women prefer to work as a housewife, but does that make the successful business women an abomination? So why is female church leadership still such a controversy?
While I might address god as a father, just because of my limited imagination and my limited capacity to feel intimacy - I fervently reject the sexist straight jacket.
Perhaps to some this seems a trivial matter. But for me it has become a defining matter. Ultimately, the way we perceive god bears upon our belief systems and our behavior.
The majority of orthodox Christianity retains a patriarchical view of the world. God is addressed as 'Father', 'Lord', and 'He'. However, I cannot but regard all these masculine addresses as a - perhaps weak - representation of own patriarchical thinking. Why would god have a sex anyway? According to the Biblical narrative god doesn't need a sexual counterpart to create. Moreover, some scarce examples in the Bible describe god in a maternal fashion. I therefore conclude that God has no sex and our overwhelmingly masculine addresses are not correct.
Yet, there is another side of me that longs for a god as a father, a masculine type. When I used to pray I would imagine god as a fatherly figure, more than a motherly. It probably has much to do with the way our societies are arranged, where fathers are all too often head of the family - the ones who should be responsible for many (extra-household and long-term) affairs. Where my doubts often lie in things like career or my place in the world, I like to address the masculine god.
When praying, having come to the conclusion that God is not a man, I felt I was constantly making a mistake by addressing god as Lord or Father. I tried to avoid the matter by using words like 'Creator' or 'God'. However, I also perceived my feelings of intimacy all but disappeared. Coupled with negative experiences of Christian conservative views of sex (and the role of sexes) I finally stopped praying.
Having lived in China for almost half a year. Not too regularly visiting Church, I still feel like I am in need of a god who gives meaning to life beyond science, occasional charity and our daily saving and spending. Having rejected the possibility of a masculine god, while being a major step, I do not pretend to better know god. The easy way out would be to reject the 'god-hypothesis'. Though I do mind posing god as an hypothesis (and I am open to the idea that there is no god) I found little reason or perhaps willingness to reject it. But neither would I confirm many of the mainstream assumptions about God and their conclusions (e.g. on sexuality and the role of different sexes). Having an unclear picture of the universe and its presumed god, makes one - who still classifies himself as a christian - quite lonely. So recently I have taken up praying again, sometimes quite shamelessly calling god as Father, assuming that however I address god, it is - or should be - of no consequence.
So at times I will call god 'Father' or 'Lord', but that does not legitimize support or acknowledgement of some patriarchical order. I wholeheartedly object to the assumed leadership of men in church, family, or society. I do not see the moral superiority of masculine dominance, in the same way as I do not see the superiority of feminine dominance. Sexual straight jackets are invariably sexist. In my opinion, this holds true for sexual orientation as well. True, perhaps more women prefer to work as a housewife, but does that make the successful business women an abomination? So why is female church leadership still such a controversy?
While I might address god as a father, just because of my limited imagination and my limited capacity to feel intimacy - I fervently reject the sexist straight jacket.
EU Science and Technology Fellowship Programme 2ND INTAKE
Dear Colleagues,
As a fellow under the EU Science and Technology Fellowship Programme's (STF) 1st intake, I highly recommend this programme's second call (2010-2013 STF2 China). Under this programme I am currently doing a project on 'Public-Private Partnerships in China's Forest Management' at the China University for Political Science and Law.
This ambitious programme is part of an EC action aiming at building bridges between the EU and the People?s Republic of China in the Science & Technology domain. STF China promotes mobility of EU researchers towards the Chinese research and academia. The programme includes intensive language and culture training to enable EU researchers to successfully develop meaningful and long-lasting contacts with their Chinese counterparts.
The call is open for experienced EU researchers from all disciplines who are interested collaboration with China (except Sinology and Chinese Language and Culture scholars and those who already have Chinese language skills). Those who are interested in applying for the 2nd intake of the STF programme should visit http://www.euchinastf.eu/ and open the link ?Information concerning application for the 2nd intake?. This link will supply you with all relevant information regarding the application process. In case you have questions about the application, then please send an e-mail directly to: DELEGATION-CHINA-CALL-TENDER@ec.europa.eu
The STF China office in Beijing will post frequently asked questions periodically on the www.euschinastf.eu website and that of EuropeAid, which also may assist you in the application process. Good luck!
Best,
Sander
______________________
Sander Chan, MA
??????
EU Science and Technology Research Fellow
?????????????
Coordinator Earth System Governance Network in China
????????????????
EU Science and Technology Fellowship Programme in China, Beijing
??????????
Institute for Environmental Studies, Dpt. for Environmental Policy Analysis, VU University Amsterdam
?????????(VU), ??????IVM?
E sander . chan[at]ivm.vu.nl
I www.ivm.vu.nl / www.earthsystemgovernance.org / www.euchinastf.eu
As a fellow under the EU Science and Technology Fellowship Programme's (STF) 1st intake, I highly recommend this programme's second call (2010-2013 STF2 China). Under this programme I am currently doing a project on 'Public-Private Partnerships in China's Forest Management' at the China University for Political Science and Law.
This ambitious programme is part of an EC action aiming at building bridges between the EU and the People?s Republic of China in the Science & Technology domain. STF China promotes mobility of EU researchers towards the Chinese research and academia. The programme includes intensive language and culture training to enable EU researchers to successfully develop meaningful and long-lasting contacts with their Chinese counterparts.
The call is open for experienced EU researchers from all disciplines who are interested collaboration with China (except Sinology and Chinese Language and Culture scholars and those who already have Chinese language skills). Those who are interested in applying for the 2nd intake of the STF programme should visit http://www.euchinastf.eu/ and open the link ?Information concerning application for the 2nd intake?. This link will supply you with all relevant information regarding the application process. In case you have questions about the application, then please send an e-mail directly to: DELEGATION-CHINA-CALL-TENDER@ec.europa.eu
The STF China office in Beijing will post frequently asked questions periodically on the www.euschinastf.eu website and that of EuropeAid, which also may assist you in the application process. Good luck!
Best,
Sander
______________________
Sander Chan, MA
??????
EU Science and Technology Research Fellow
?????????????
Coordinator Earth System Governance Network in China
????????????????
EU Science and Technology Fellowship Programme in China, Beijing
??????????
Institute for Environmental Studies, Dpt. for Environmental Policy Analysis, VU University Amsterdam
?????????(VU), ??????IVM?
E sander . chan[at]ivm.vu.nl
I www.ivm.vu.nl / www.earthsystemgovernance.org / www.euchinastf.eu
'In dat zinnetje kwam Zijn liefde naar me toe'
In onderstaand verhaal vertelt Corrieke van der Kruk hoe ze altijd had gedacht geen relatie aan te durven met een man. Hoe ze ontdekte dat ze lesbisch was. Maar ook hoe er een grote verandering in haar leven kwam.
Ik heb altijd geweten dat ik geen relatie aandurfde met een man, ook al begreep ik zelf niet zo goed waarom. Toen ik een jaar of twee?ntwintig was, kwam ik voor mezelf tot de conclusie dat ik lesbisch was. Dat was voor mij heel logisch. Ik viel niet op mannen, d?s viel ik op vrouwen. En toen werd ik ook verliefd op een vrouw. Alsof ik een deur had opengezet.
De gevoelens die ik toen kreeg, waren ook echt. Het is niet zo dat ik mezelf iets ging inbeelden. Het idee van een relatie - met een vrouw - vond ik nog steeds doodeng. Maar tegelijkertijd zocht ik iemand die van me hield en van wie ik kon houden. Er zat een gat in me dat door iemand opgevuld moest worden; een allesoverheersende schreeuw om liefde, om lief te hebben. Ik wist dat mijn gevoelens in Gods ogen verkeerd waren, maar ze waren me tegelijkertijd zo dierbaar. Breken met mijn lesbische gevoelens..., ik heb het geprobeerd. Ik heb naar God geschreeuwd: 'Maak van m'n hart dan maar een betonnen blok, zodat ik van niemand meer kan houden!'
God..., ik begreep Hem niet. Hij was zo ver weg, zo koud en zo hardvochtig. Daar zat ik dan met m'n aangeboren homoseksuele geaardheid, waar ik van Hem niks mee mocht en dat enorme gat in me waar ik bijna in verzoop. Ik wist dat Hij bestond, maar eerlijk gezegd vroeg ik me af of ik Hem wel wilde kennen. Wat moest ik met een God die het onmogelijke van me vroeg? Die van het mooiste wat ik had, mijn vermogen om van een ander te houden, ook al was het een vrouw, zei: 'Het is Mij een gruwel.' Wat moest ik met een God die me maar liet aanmodderen? Ik wist dat ik moest kiezen: of God gehoorzamen, of een relatie met een vrouw, tegen Zijn wil. Ik zou het natuurlijk nooit hardop zeggen - daar was ik veel te vroom en te netjes voor -, maar eigenlijk dacht ik: 'God, geef me ??n goede reden waarom ik voor U zou moeten kiezen!'
Wissel om
Wist ik veel dat God allang met Zijn reddingsoperatie begonnen was. Een van de eerste stappen in dat plan was een gespek met een collega. Iemand die zo honderd procent voor en met Jezus ging, dat ik er jaloers van werd. Ze zei twee dingen tegen mij. Ten eerste: 'God is blij met je'. En ten tweede: 'Homoseksualiteit is niet aangeboren, God heeft je niet zo geschapen en je kunt ervan genezen.'
Dit gesprek zette een wissel om in m'n leven. Opeens was niets meer vanzelfsprekend. Terwijl ik net dacht dat ik het allemaal zo mooi op een rijtje had. God was niet meer wie ik dacht dat Hij was en ik was niet meer wie ik dacht te zijn. En wat me altijd geleerd was in m'n kerk - dat homoseksualiteit aangeboren is en dat het een kruis is dat sommige mensen moeten dragen - bleek ook al niet te kloppen.
En dan dat andere, 'God is blij met je', dat begreep ik nog veel minder. Ik wist dat God liefde was. Maar wat wist ik eigenlijk van liefde? En belangrijker nog: wat voelde ik bij liefde? Ik met m'n lebische gevoelens en m'n angst voor relaties. Hoe kon ik ooit Gods liefde begrijpen als de enige liefde waartoe ik in staat was, een gruwel in Zijn ogen was en ik zelf doodsbang was voor alle andere vormen van liefde?
'God is blij met je.' In dat ene zinnetje kwam Zijn liefde naar me toe. Zo simpel en ongecompliceerd dat zelfs ik het kon begrijpen.
Later kreeg ik nog een openbaring van Gods liefde. Ik heb het licht gezien. Letterlijk. Ik lag in m'n bed en opeens ging ik begrijpen hoeveel God van mij hield, voelde ik het, kon ik het ontvangen. En het was z? licht op m'n kamer. Ik kan niet zo goed uitleggen en in woorden vangen wat ik die nacht ervaren heb, maar ik ging begrijpen hoe ontzagwekkend groot Zijn liefde is. Groter dan dat gat in mij, groter dan alle pijn in de hele wereld. Die nacht heb ik een keuze gemaakt. Ik snapte nog steeds niet hoe het zat met die lesbische gevoelens van me, maar ik wist twee dingen heel zeker: God houdt van mij, en Hij wil niet dat ik ooit een seksuele relatie krijg met een vrouw. Die nacht heb ik gekozen om achter Hem aan te gaan.
Dwaalweg
Bij mijn weten was ik toen nog gewoon lesbisch. Had ik nog steeds gevoelens voor vrouwen die ik niet wilde hebben, maar die er wel waren. En ik wist nog steeds niet of dat nou aangeboren was of niet. Maar God ging verder. Hij liet me zien dat ik inderdaad een beeld van mezelf had gecre?eerd, van hoe ik dacht te zijn, hoe ik wilde zijn. Dat dat beeld totaal anders was dan hoe Hij mij geschapen had. Dat de weg die ik ingeslagen was om mezelf te beschermen een gevaarlijke dwaalweg was, zonder dat ik het in de gaten had. Mijn lesbische gevoelens waren niet denkbeeldig, ze hadden een oorzaak, dat had te maken met oude pijn. Ik reageerde zondig op iets dat bij mij door anderen beschadigd was, maar uiteindelijk was het wel mijn eigen keuze.
Maar God ging mij redden. Hij ging mijn keuze ongedaan maken. Dezelfde collega met wie ik maanden eerder dat gesprek gehad had, nam me mee naar een Firenight van TRIN. Ik ben geboren en getogen in de Gereformeerde Kerk (vrijgemaakt). En ik was nog nooit ergens geweest waar het ook maar in de verste verte evangelisch of charismatisch l??k. En toen TRIN.
Toen ik daar die sporthal binnenstapte, was ik emotioneel op. Er was zoveel gebeurd in de afgelopen vier maanden. Eigenlijk heb ik niet zoveel meegekregen van wat er die avond in de zaal is gebeurd tijdens de dienst. Ik wist alleen dat ik bij Jezus was en dat het goed was. Aan het eind werd er een oproep gedaan om naar voren te komen en ik ben gegaan. Toen ik daar stond, was er niemand die mij kende, niemand die mijn verhaal wist. Er is voor mij gebeden, maar niemand heeft specifiek voor mijn situatie gebeden. Dat hoefde ook niet, want God wist wie ik was.
Dik touw
Opeens waren die lesbische gevoelens weer zo'n groot issue voor me dat ik zei: 'Heer, wat moet ik hier nou mee? Hoe kan ik nou bij U horen en nog steeds dit hebben?' En ik keek omhoog en zag de hemel opengaan. Er kwam een heel dik touw naar beneden dat helemaal in me ging, tot in het diepste van mijn binnenste. En toen begon God te trekken, met lange, sterke halen en ik voelde dat er iets uit mij naar boven getrokken werd. Ik voelde het in me los scheuren en het deed ontzettend veel pijn, maar God zei: 'Ik trek het nu uit je en zult nog best een tijd pijn hebben, maar je zal genezen.' En terwijl het omhoog getrokken werd, hoorde ik gejuich om me heen.
Dit is mijn verhaal. Het is het verhaal van God in mijn leven. Van de goede Herder die ??n van Zijn schaapjes uit de wildernis heeft gehaald. En het is nog lang niet klaar. Hij had gelijk toen Hij zei dat het nog wel even pijn zou doen. Genezing of bevrijding van homoseksualiteit, of het je het ook wilt noemen, is niet gemakkelijk. Maar als God me nu voor dezelfde keuze zou zetten, zou ik het niet anders willen. Want Zijn liefde is het mooiste wat me ooit is gegeven.
Ik wil mijn verhaal vertellen omdat ik merk dat de discussie rondom homoseksualiteit die steeds weer opnieuw oplaait, bezig is gereformeerde kerken tot op het bot te verscheuren. God heeft mij laten zien dat mijn lesbische geaardheid niet aangeboren was. En dat Hij me wilde en kon genezen. De afgelopen anderhalf jaar is misschien wel de meest heftige periode van mijn leven geweest. Ik heb me nog nooit zo bang en verloren gevoeld als in de afgelopen tijd. Maar ik heb me ook nog nooit zo geliefd, veilig en gevonden geweten. Jezus is mijn goede Herder.
Corrieke van der Kruk is lezer van de krant en lid van een Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerk. De grote verandering in het leven van een lesbische vrouw.
Bron: Nederlands Dagblad - 23 juli 2009
---
Corriekes ervaring vind ik aangrijpend en ik ben blij voor haar als ze vrede heeft gevonden bij haar genezing. Toch maak ik mij zorgen over deze publicatie in het ND, wat mij betreft d? 'swing state' als het gaat om homo-emancipatie in Christelijk Nederland.
Ongetwijfeld zullen sommigen haar verhaal gemerkt of ongemerkt generaliseren en als maatgevend opvatten voor (andere) Christelijke homo's. Zeker als ze zich zo zwaar beroept op haar persoonlijke ervaring als een Goddelijke ervaring. Immers, is haar God ook niet mijn God? Dus zou er van mij als Christelijke homo wat anders worden verlangd dan van Corrieke?
Net zoals Trinmar zou mijn verhaal - op een bepaald moment - ook zo ongeveer hebben geklonken als dat van Corrieke. We hebben allemaal een "wonderbaarlijke genezing" meegemaakt. Alleen stopt het verhaal hier niet. Mijn strijd bleek nog lang niet gestreden, tot het moment waarop ik in zag dat ik niet hoefde te veranderen of te genezen om Gods genade te mogen genieten. Ik begon zelfs in te zien dat er verschillende geloofsvisies bestaan ten aanzien van homoseksualiteit.
Ik wil niet beweren dat Corrieke door een fase gaat of dat zij misschien tot andere inzichten zal komen. Integendeel, hoewel mijn persoonlijke ervaring met 'genezing' een overwegend negatieve was kan ik dat niet betrekken op anderen. Als iemand beweert dat zij genezen genezen is, wie ben ik om dat te ontkennen? Tegelijkertijd zou ik graag willen dat mijn homoseksuele strijd niet wordt afgedaan als 'niet van God'. In mijn geval heb ik zeker het gevoel dat homoseksualiteit aangeboren is. In ieder geval is het geen keuze. Helaas hoor ik uit Christelijk Nederland regelmatig oordelen over wie ik eigenlijk zou moeten zijn. Daarom hoort bij dit ND artikel een aanvulling dat het hier gaat om een persoonlijk verhaal. Een persoonlijk verhaal moet niet als maatgevend worden beschouwd voor alle Christelijke homo's, dat gaat voorbij aan de waarde van ieder levensverhaal waarin God een hoofdrol speelt.
In onderstaand verhaal vertelt Corrieke van der Kruk hoe ze altijd had gedacht geen relatie aan te durven met een man. Hoe ze ontdekte dat ze lesbisch was. Maar ook hoe er een grote verandering in haar leven kwam.
Ik heb altijd geweten dat ik geen relatie aandurfde met een man, ook al begreep ik zelf niet zo goed waarom. Toen ik een jaar of twee?ntwintig was, kwam ik voor mezelf tot de conclusie dat ik lesbisch was. Dat was voor mij heel logisch. Ik viel niet op mannen, d?s viel ik op vrouwen. En toen werd ik ook verliefd op een vrouw. Alsof ik een deur had opengezet.
De gevoelens die ik toen kreeg, waren ook echt. Het is niet zo dat ik mezelf iets ging inbeelden. Het idee van een relatie - met een vrouw - vond ik nog steeds doodeng. Maar tegelijkertijd zocht ik iemand die van me hield en van wie ik kon houden. Er zat een gat in me dat door iemand opgevuld moest worden; een allesoverheersende schreeuw om liefde, om lief te hebben. Ik wist dat mijn gevoelens in Gods ogen verkeerd waren, maar ze waren me tegelijkertijd zo dierbaar. Breken met mijn lesbische gevoelens..., ik heb het geprobeerd. Ik heb naar God geschreeuwd: 'Maak van m'n hart dan maar een betonnen blok, zodat ik van niemand meer kan houden!'
God..., ik begreep Hem niet. Hij was zo ver weg, zo koud en zo hardvochtig. Daar zat ik dan met m'n aangeboren homoseksuele geaardheid, waar ik van Hem niks mee mocht en dat enorme gat in me waar ik bijna in verzoop. Ik wist dat Hij bestond, maar eerlijk gezegd vroeg ik me af of ik Hem wel wilde kennen. Wat moest ik met een God die het onmogelijke van me vroeg? Die van het mooiste wat ik had, mijn vermogen om van een ander te houden, ook al was het een vrouw, zei: 'Het is Mij een gruwel.' Wat moest ik met een God die me maar liet aanmodderen? Ik wist dat ik moest kiezen: of God gehoorzamen, of een relatie met een vrouw, tegen Zijn wil. Ik zou het natuurlijk nooit hardop zeggen - daar was ik veel te vroom en te netjes voor -, maar eigenlijk dacht ik: 'God, geef me ??n goede reden waarom ik voor U zou moeten kiezen!'
Wissel om
Wist ik veel dat God allang met Zijn reddingsoperatie begonnen was. Een van de eerste stappen in dat plan was een gespek met een collega. Iemand die zo honderd procent voor en met Jezus ging, dat ik er jaloers van werd. Ze zei twee dingen tegen mij. Ten eerste: 'God is blij met je'. En ten tweede: 'Homoseksualiteit is niet aangeboren, God heeft je niet zo geschapen en je kunt ervan genezen.'
Dit gesprek zette een wissel om in m'n leven. Opeens was niets meer vanzelfsprekend. Terwijl ik net dacht dat ik het allemaal zo mooi op een rijtje had. God was niet meer wie ik dacht dat Hij was en ik was niet meer wie ik dacht te zijn. En wat me altijd geleerd was in m'n kerk - dat homoseksualiteit aangeboren is en dat het een kruis is dat sommige mensen moeten dragen - bleek ook al niet te kloppen.
En dan dat andere, 'God is blij met je', dat begreep ik nog veel minder. Ik wist dat God liefde was. Maar wat wist ik eigenlijk van liefde? En belangrijker nog: wat voelde ik bij liefde? Ik met m'n lebische gevoelens en m'n angst voor relaties. Hoe kon ik ooit Gods liefde begrijpen als de enige liefde waartoe ik in staat was, een gruwel in Zijn ogen was en ik zelf doodsbang was voor alle andere vormen van liefde?
'God is blij met je.' In dat ene zinnetje kwam Zijn liefde naar me toe. Zo simpel en ongecompliceerd dat zelfs ik het kon begrijpen.
Later kreeg ik nog een openbaring van Gods liefde. Ik heb het licht gezien. Letterlijk. Ik lag in m'n bed en opeens ging ik begrijpen hoeveel God van mij hield, voelde ik het, kon ik het ontvangen. En het was z? licht op m'n kamer. Ik kan niet zo goed uitleggen en in woorden vangen wat ik die nacht ervaren heb, maar ik ging begrijpen hoe ontzagwekkend groot Zijn liefde is. Groter dan dat gat in mij, groter dan alle pijn in de hele wereld. Die nacht heb ik een keuze gemaakt. Ik snapte nog steeds niet hoe het zat met die lesbische gevoelens van me, maar ik wist twee dingen heel zeker: God houdt van mij, en Hij wil niet dat ik ooit een seksuele relatie krijg met een vrouw. Die nacht heb ik gekozen om achter Hem aan te gaan.
Dwaalweg
Bij mijn weten was ik toen nog gewoon lesbisch. Had ik nog steeds gevoelens voor vrouwen die ik niet wilde hebben, maar die er wel waren. En ik wist nog steeds niet of dat nou aangeboren was of niet. Maar God ging verder. Hij liet me zien dat ik inderdaad een beeld van mezelf had gecre?eerd, van hoe ik dacht te zijn, hoe ik wilde zijn. Dat dat beeld totaal anders was dan hoe Hij mij geschapen had. Dat de weg die ik ingeslagen was om mezelf te beschermen een gevaarlijke dwaalweg was, zonder dat ik het in de gaten had. Mijn lesbische gevoelens waren niet denkbeeldig, ze hadden een oorzaak, dat had te maken met oude pijn. Ik reageerde zondig op iets dat bij mij door anderen beschadigd was, maar uiteindelijk was het wel mijn eigen keuze.
Maar God ging mij redden. Hij ging mijn keuze ongedaan maken. Dezelfde collega met wie ik maanden eerder dat gesprek gehad had, nam me mee naar een Firenight van TRIN. Ik ben geboren en getogen in de Gereformeerde Kerk (vrijgemaakt). En ik was nog nooit ergens geweest waar het ook maar in de verste verte evangelisch of charismatisch l??k. En toen TRIN.
Toen ik daar die sporthal binnenstapte, was ik emotioneel op. Er was zoveel gebeurd in de afgelopen vier maanden. Eigenlijk heb ik niet zoveel meegekregen van wat er die avond in de zaal is gebeurd tijdens de dienst. Ik wist alleen dat ik bij Jezus was en dat het goed was. Aan het eind werd er een oproep gedaan om naar voren te komen en ik ben gegaan. Toen ik daar stond, was er niemand die mij kende, niemand die mijn verhaal wist. Er is voor mij gebeden, maar niemand heeft specifiek voor mijn situatie gebeden. Dat hoefde ook niet, want God wist wie ik was.
Dik touw
Opeens waren die lesbische gevoelens weer zo'n groot issue voor me dat ik zei: 'Heer, wat moet ik hier nou mee? Hoe kan ik nou bij U horen en nog steeds dit hebben?' En ik keek omhoog en zag de hemel opengaan. Er kwam een heel dik touw naar beneden dat helemaal in me ging, tot in het diepste van mijn binnenste. En toen begon God te trekken, met lange, sterke halen en ik voelde dat er iets uit mij naar boven getrokken werd. Ik voelde het in me los scheuren en het deed ontzettend veel pijn, maar God zei: 'Ik trek het nu uit je en zult nog best een tijd pijn hebben, maar je zal genezen.' En terwijl het omhoog getrokken werd, hoorde ik gejuich om me heen.
Dit is mijn verhaal. Het is het verhaal van God in mijn leven. Van de goede Herder die ??n van Zijn schaapjes uit de wildernis heeft gehaald. En het is nog lang niet klaar. Hij had gelijk toen Hij zei dat het nog wel even pijn zou doen. Genezing of bevrijding van homoseksualiteit, of het je het ook wilt noemen, is niet gemakkelijk. Maar als God me nu voor dezelfde keuze zou zetten, zou ik het niet anders willen. Want Zijn liefde is het mooiste wat me ooit is gegeven.
Ik wil mijn verhaal vertellen omdat ik merk dat de discussie rondom homoseksualiteit die steeds weer opnieuw oplaait, bezig is gereformeerde kerken tot op het bot te verscheuren. God heeft mij laten zien dat mijn lesbische geaardheid niet aangeboren was. En dat Hij me wilde en kon genezen. De afgelopen anderhalf jaar is misschien wel de meest heftige periode van mijn leven geweest. Ik heb me nog nooit zo bang en verloren gevoeld als in de afgelopen tijd. Maar ik heb me ook nog nooit zo geliefd, veilig en gevonden geweten. Jezus is mijn goede Herder.
Corrieke van der Kruk is lezer van de krant en lid van een Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerk. De grote verandering in het leven van een lesbische vrouw.
Bron: Nederlands Dagblad - 23 juli 2009
---
Corriekes ervaring vind ik aangrijpend en ik ben blij voor haar als ze vrede heeft gevonden bij haar genezing. Toch maak ik mij zorgen over deze publicatie in het ND, wat mij betreft d? 'swing state' als het gaat om homo-emancipatie in Christelijk Nederland.
Ongetwijfeld zullen sommigen haar verhaal gemerkt of ongemerkt generaliseren en als maatgevend opvatten voor (andere) Christelijke homo's. Zeker als ze zich zo zwaar beroept op haar persoonlijke ervaring als een Goddelijke ervaring. Immers, is haar God ook niet mijn God? Dus zou er van mij als Christelijke homo wat anders worden verlangd dan van Corrieke?
Net zoals Trinmar zou mijn verhaal - op een bepaald moment - ook zo ongeveer hebben geklonken als dat van Corrieke. We hebben allemaal een "wonderbaarlijke genezing" meegemaakt. Alleen stopt het verhaal hier niet. Mijn strijd bleek nog lang niet gestreden, tot het moment waarop ik in zag dat ik niet hoefde te veranderen of te genezen om Gods genade te mogen genieten. Ik begon zelfs in te zien dat er verschillende geloofsvisies bestaan ten aanzien van homoseksualiteit.
Ik wil niet beweren dat Corrieke door een fase gaat of dat zij misschien tot andere inzichten zal komen. Integendeel, hoewel mijn persoonlijke ervaring met 'genezing' een overwegend negatieve was kan ik dat niet betrekken op anderen. Als iemand beweert dat zij genezen genezen is, wie ben ik om dat te ontkennen? Tegelijkertijd zou ik graag willen dat mijn homoseksuele strijd niet wordt afgedaan als 'niet van God'. In mijn geval heb ik zeker het gevoel dat homoseksualiteit aangeboren is. In ieder geval is het geen keuze. Helaas hoor ik uit Christelijk Nederland regelmatig oordelen over wie ik eigenlijk zou moeten zijn. Daarom hoort bij dit ND artikel een aanvulling dat het hier gaat om een persoonlijk verhaal. Een persoonlijk verhaal moet niet als maatgevend worden beschouwd voor alle Christelijke homo's, dat gaat voorbij aan de waarde van ieder levensverhaal waarin God een hoofdrol speelt.
Nanjing
Nanjing strikes me a city of many would-be's. It would have been China's capital had the Nationalists maintained rule over the mainland; it would have been the capital of the obscure semi-Christian kingdom of Taiping (heavenly peace). It would have been Japan's governor's seat. But recent history has left Nanjing defeated and devastated. In December 1937 - January 1938, an estimated 260,000 civilians were murdered by Japanese troops in what is now called the 'Nanjing massacre' or the 'Rape of Nanjing'.
Nanjing's modern history is perhaps most visible in the Presidential Palace. In fact, the premises dates much further back than the Republic of China (1912-1949). It also served as a ducal palace during the Ming Dynasty; as a viceroyal palace during the Qing dynasty; as the imperial palace of the 'Heavenly King' of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' during the Taiping rebellion; and as a headquarters of the Japanese occupiers.
One of the more obscure chapters in recent Chinese history is the Taiping Rebellion, 1850 to 1864. A Christian convert, Hong Xiuquan, strayed from orthodoxy; believing himself to be the younger brother of Jesus, he established his Heavenly Kingdom of Peace (Tienguo Taiping). At the hight of rule he had 30 million subjects. His rule was marked by a strict separation between sexes, land reform, the abolishment of footbinding, and the suppression of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism: promoting his version of Christianity as the official religion. In 1864 imperial troops besieged Nanjing, while the 'Heavenly King' was dying a rather inglorious death of food poisoning.
While there's been debates over the Taiping's contributions to modern day China, it is a peculiar case of East meets West interesting; with Western (semi-) Christian values promoted as state ideology.
In spite of lofty norms and values speak, rule in the Taiping kingdom was brutal. The rebellion is said to have cost 20 million (!!!) or more lives.
Nanjing's modern history is perhaps most visible in the Presidential Palace. In fact, the premises dates much further back than the Republic of China (1912-1949). It also served as a ducal palace during the Ming Dynasty; as a viceroyal palace during the Qing dynasty; as the imperial palace of the 'Heavenly King' of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' during the Taiping rebellion; and as a headquarters of the Japanese occupiers.
One of the more obscure chapters in recent Chinese history is the Taiping Rebellion, 1850 to 1864. A Christian convert, Hong Xiuquan, strayed from orthodoxy; believing himself to be the younger brother of Jesus, he established his Heavenly Kingdom of Peace (Tienguo Taiping). At the hight of rule he had 30 million subjects. His rule was marked by a strict separation between sexes, land reform, the abolishment of footbinding, and the suppression of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism: promoting his version of Christianity as the official religion. In 1864 imperial troops besieged Nanjing, while the 'Heavenly King' was dying a rather inglorious death of food poisoning.
While there's been debates over the Taiping's contributions to modern day China, it is a peculiar case of East meets West interesting; with Western (semi-) Christian values promoted as state ideology.
In spite of lofty norms and values speak, rule in the Taiping kingdom was brutal. The rebellion is said to have cost 20 million (!!!) or more lives.
Trapped in Nanjing
After almost half a year I finally got out on my own to do some traveling. On the famous Yellow Mountains, however, I couldn't see a hand before my eyes, with heavy rains and a typhoon that's causing a lot of trouble all over Asia. So I went Nanjing, capital during the republic. At least there are more places to shelter in this city of 5 million. (This is a test post - to see if I can post through a Gmail tool, since my blog host is permanently blocked)
New publication in European Journal of East Asian Studies
Citation:
Chan, Sander, Partnerships for Sustainable Development in China: Adaptation of a Global Governance Instrument, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2009), p. 121
-abstract-
PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA: ADAPTATION OF A GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INSTRUMENT
Hybrid governance instruments such as public-private partnerships are increasingly applied in so-called emerging countries, in particular Brazil, India and China (the 'BRICs'). With a more diverse set of influential political actors involved in global governance, the question arises whether existing global governance institutions are effective and legitimate.
This paper focuses on partnerships in China's sustainable development. China has witnessed rapid economic transition from a plan economy to a market economy. In the course of these developments, China faces increasing ecological stress and social inequity. Reform and intensification of China's sustainable development governance seems necessary. Are partnerships the road to go? Does China successfully appropriate the partnership model and integrate it into its domestic governance? This paper discusses how Partnerships for Sustainable Development were brokered at the 2002 Worlds Summit for Sustainable Development, in spite of initial resistance by developing countries; and whether a prevalent partnership model is emerging in China.
--
To get a fulltext pdf, please contact me or leave a comment.
China,partnerships,sustainable development,governance,United Nations
Chan, Sander, Partnerships for Sustainable Development in China: Adaptation of a Global Governance Instrument, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2009), p. 121
-abstract-
PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA: ADAPTATION OF A GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INSTRUMENT
Hybrid governance instruments such as public-private partnerships are increasingly applied in so-called emerging countries, in particular Brazil, India and China (the 'BRICs'). With a more diverse set of influential political actors involved in global governance, the question arises whether existing global governance institutions are effective and legitimate.
This paper focuses on partnerships in China's sustainable development. China has witnessed rapid economic transition from a plan economy to a market economy. In the course of these developments, China faces increasing ecological stress and social inequity. Reform and intensification of China's sustainable development governance seems necessary. Are partnerships the road to go? Does China successfully appropriate the partnership model and integrate it into its domestic governance? This paper discusses how Partnerships for Sustainable Development were brokered at the 2002 Worlds Summit for Sustainable Development, in spite of initial resistance by developing countries; and whether a prevalent partnership model is emerging in China.
--
To get a fulltext pdf, please contact me or leave a comment.
China,partnerships,sustainable development,governance,United Nations
Homosexuality in China and the West
Attitudes towards homosexuality in China and the West are quite different. Friends back in Europe ask me, 'isn't it hard to be gay in China?' For many it is, not unlike in Europe. However there are different reasons for homosexual hardship. Let me give an example, recent news items from Europe and China.
In Poznan, Poland, conservative councilor Michal Grzes fumed over his local zoo acquiring a "gay" elephant "Ninio". "We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?". While some Poznan clerks may be looking into Ninio's return policy, Polarland Zoo in Harbin, China, prides itself over conducting a wedding ceremony for its gay penguin couple. According to the zoo keepers, the penguin couple adopted rejected chicks and proved to be the best parents in the zoo.
Apart from the high tabloid content of these news stories, they also tell us about different attitudes towards homosexuality in China and Europe. Marriage in Europe is generally seen as a sacrament, a god-given institution, a divinely appointed and defined institution. According to mainstream church reading of the Bible, marriage is defined by heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not supposed to be and therefore an aberration, a consequence of sin. In the most religious Western countries, gay marriage therefore sparks great controversy. Examples of homosexuality in nature is especially controversial, because it potentially undermines argument that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.
China, with its long secularist, or at least multi-religious tradition, marriage is not necessarily a sacrament.
Marriage is foremost a social, secular, institution. This does not necessarily open up marriage for same-sex couples. However, marriage as a social construction does not exclude people on the basis of what is considered 'natural' or 'original'. Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture does not directly affect social acceptance. Neither does gay marriage spark controversy because of religious reasons. Rather the determinant for acceptance is defined by the immediate social environment, rather than church or state. Therefore, depending on these immediate socio-cultural conditions gay marriage may acceptable or not. When it involves cute penguins or when it involves 'symbolic gay marriages' on Tiananmen square last summer, gay marriage is quite acceptable. However the broader acceptance, into daily life is absent, because there is a social expectation to start a family, whether you're gay or not.
It is not uncommon to find married men in China who are still ('practicing') gay. From a Western lens, this is seems hypocritical, and perhaps in many cases it is. However, many men's homosexuality is a public secret for the people around them, including their next of kin. Homosexuality is does not necessarily lead to controversy and scandal, as long as men abide by the socio-cultural norm to be a husband and father. I find this phenomenon quite common, also with heterosexual Chinese men; it is not unusual for Chinese men to have extramarital affairs which are often public secret.
In Western popular opinion, it seems like the Chinese government is actively oppressing homosexuals. In fact, homosexuality is not an offense according to Chinese law. That doesn't make the Chinese government gay rights activist. However, much of the unease with gay marriage is not political, or religious, it is based upon a deeply socio-cultural understanding, at the level of friends and family, of what marriage should be. Many Chinese parents' concerns over their children's homosexuality is not because it is sin, but because children should marry (and reproduce). And because being openly-homosexual may lead to a serious lost of face for the family.
It may be interesting to note that the Chinese attitude towards women and homosexuality may be slightly different. Under the one-child policy, gender imbalance has become a problem. Women who exclusively date women are seen as contributing to the problem of a shortage of women.
From the view point of 'emancipation' it is difficult to draw conclusions on the differences in attitudes towards homosexuality in China and the West. In some Western countries we see some of the most progressive and accepting policies for homosexuals; while other Western governments are downright anti-gay. In this spectrum it seems China's situation is somewhere in the middle, at it will probably stay there for quite a while. On the one hand socio-cultural attitudes are deeply ingrained; on the other hand, gay emancipation is not one of the most pressing issues in China.
In Poznan, Poland, conservative councilor Michal Grzes fumed over his local zoo acquiring a "gay" elephant "Ninio". "We were supposed to have a herd, but as Ninio prefers male friends over females how will he produce offspring?". While some Poznan clerks may be looking into Ninio's return policy, Polarland Zoo in Harbin, China, prides itself over conducting a wedding ceremony for its gay penguin couple. According to the zoo keepers, the penguin couple adopted rejected chicks and proved to be the best parents in the zoo.
Apart from the high tabloid content of these news stories, they also tell us about different attitudes towards homosexuality in China and Europe. Marriage in Europe is generally seen as a sacrament, a god-given institution, a divinely appointed and defined institution. According to mainstream church reading of the Bible, marriage is defined by heterosexuality. Homosexuality is not supposed to be and therefore an aberration, a consequence of sin. In the most religious Western countries, gay marriage therefore sparks great controversy. Examples of homosexuality in nature is especially controversial, because it potentially undermines argument that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful.
China, with its long secularist, or at least multi-religious tradition, marriage is not necessarily a sacrament.
Marriage is foremost a social, secular, institution. This does not necessarily open up marriage for same-sex couples. However, marriage as a social construction does not exclude people on the basis of what is considered 'natural' or 'original'. Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture does not directly affect social acceptance. Neither does gay marriage spark controversy because of religious reasons. Rather the determinant for acceptance is defined by the immediate social environment, rather than church or state. Therefore, depending on these immediate socio-cultural conditions gay marriage may acceptable or not. When it involves cute penguins or when it involves 'symbolic gay marriages' on Tiananmen square last summer, gay marriage is quite acceptable. However the broader acceptance, into daily life is absent, because there is a social expectation to start a family, whether you're gay or not.
It is not uncommon to find married men in China who are still ('practicing') gay. From a Western lens, this is seems hypocritical, and perhaps in many cases it is. However, many men's homosexuality is a public secret for the people around them, including their next of kin. Homosexuality is does not necessarily lead to controversy and scandal, as long as men abide by the socio-cultural norm to be a husband and father. I find this phenomenon quite common, also with heterosexual Chinese men; it is not unusual for Chinese men to have extramarital affairs which are often public secret.
In Western popular opinion, it seems like the Chinese government is actively oppressing homosexuals. In fact, homosexuality is not an offense according to Chinese law. That doesn't make the Chinese government gay rights activist. However, much of the unease with gay marriage is not political, or religious, it is based upon a deeply socio-cultural understanding, at the level of friends and family, of what marriage should be. Many Chinese parents' concerns over their children's homosexuality is not because it is sin, but because children should marry (and reproduce). And because being openly-homosexual may lead to a serious lost of face for the family.
It may be interesting to note that the Chinese attitude towards women and homosexuality may be slightly different. Under the one-child policy, gender imbalance has become a problem. Women who exclusively date women are seen as contributing to the problem of a shortage of women.
From the view point of 'emancipation' it is difficult to draw conclusions on the differences in attitudes towards homosexuality in China and the West. In some Western countries we see some of the most progressive and accepting policies for homosexuals; while other Western governments are downright anti-gay. In this spectrum it seems China's situation is somewhere in the middle, at it will probably stay there for quite a while. On the one hand socio-cultural attitudes are deeply ingrained; on the other hand, gay emancipation is not one of the most pressing issues in China.
Blogger here / Watercube
The great firewall has kept me from posting recently. First there were ways around the wall. The dashboard was still available, although the blog itself was not visible. When the dashboard was also blocked, I used web proxies. However, it was impossible to upload images or videos. Moreover, I often lost my posts when uploading. So now I'm trying to post through Flickr, hope that works.
In the image you see a detail of the National Aquatics Center, better known as the 'Watercube', one of Beijing's most impressive new buildings.
In the image you see a detail of the National Aquatics Center, better known as the 'Watercube', one of Beijing's most impressive new buildings.
Exclusion of the Included - Liberal Democracy and Religious Freedom in Holland
To which extent is exclusion an acceptable political strategy in a liberal democracy? I pondered this question as I read about a Dutchman being forced to resign from his Christian school because of his relationship with another man. On the one hand there is the strategy of religious freedom, on the other hand a defining feature of a liberal democracy is the every citizen's equality before law. In one case I speak of strategy (religious freedom), while in the other case I speak of 'a defining feature', or a principle. Some might contend otherwise, asserting that religious freedom is a principle and equality is just a legal feature. However, in the particular case of the Netherlands, religious freedom - historically - is much more of a strategy than a principle.
Being a religiously divided country in the past, the political elite in the Netherlands devised religious freedom as a strategy to appease protestants, secularists and Catholics. By allowing each of the religious and ideological groups to have their own social organizations, newspapers, political parties and schools, a potentially explosive (perhaps Northern Irish) situation was avoided. While one should not deny the great merits of stability and peace, the strategy of religious freedom should not be confused with democracy. Individual freedom was severely restricted, if not by the state - by the social organizations a person was brought up with. Marriages across religious cleavages was frowned upon; even a reason for social exclusion. The aforementioned case of a gay teacher being forced to resign is typical contemporary case where religious freedom comes to the expense of a particular person's worthiness and dignity. However, religious freedom has changed from a strategy to contain and appease opposing societal forces - to a principle to make private moral judgments public.
One might ask if the Rotary can exclude people below a certain income threshold from membership, why can a school or a political party not be exclusive in their hiring and firing? There is certainly a good argument to be made. After all, political parties entertain ideologies which assume the exclusion of other-thinking people. However there are cases of the exclusion of the excluded and there are cases of the exclusion of the included. A case of exclusion of the already excluded is for instance when a socialist applies for membership of a liberal party. When his membership is denied, he is not more or less deprived than before. However when a member of the in-group is excluded, exclusion of the included, deprivation can be deep: lost of social relations, income, livelihood, personal belief... In such cases, the personal deprivation should be brought in the equation when considering exclusion versus someone's right to exert its personal freedom within a restricted social context. Moreover, the argument of religious freedom as a political strategy has become weaker, as inclusion or exclusion in this case does not serve societal appeasement as a goal. Religious cleavages are not featuring in Dutch society as they did in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, news coverage on Islamic extremism in Holland would suggest that religious cleavages are still apparent. Perhaps they are, but that doesn't necessarily result in appeasement through religious freedom as a political strategy. The social parameters are different, the Netherlands is no longer divided in three more or less equally sized religious and ideological groups, rather the Dutch discomfort with Islam or a small section of orthodox Christianity actually applies to a small minority groups. In some cases religious freedom as a strategy will even cause conflict, rather than appeasement. (Imagine allowing circumcision on young girls as a policy of religious freedom... I think that would anger large sections of the population, possibly even resulting in conflict.)
To bring this discussion to a (temporary) close, I'll make up a sum of the particular case of the gay Dutch teacher. In this case there is no reason to assume the teacher is not abiding by the school's rules (he probably had no relationship a time of appointment), he was part of the in-group, but now excluded. This has come at a great personal cost: lost of income and livelihood. The appeasement resulting from this decision to exclude is minimal. Perhaps, at the school some parents and teachers are for or against, but there's no reasonable threat of broader social conflict. At the personal level there is not any evidence that his functioning as a teacher is compromised by his private relation; to loose out on a teacher may even come at the direct expense of his students and the students' parents.
This is only one in many cases of exclusion of the included in the Netherlands. Therefore, it seems like religious freedom as a strategy should loose ground on a case by case basis to the merit of the respect of individual dignity and worthiness. exclusion,homosexuality,liberalism,religious freedom,Netherlands
Being a religiously divided country in the past, the political elite in the Netherlands devised religious freedom as a strategy to appease protestants, secularists and Catholics. By allowing each of the religious and ideological groups to have their own social organizations, newspapers, political parties and schools, a potentially explosive (perhaps Northern Irish) situation was avoided. While one should not deny the great merits of stability and peace, the strategy of religious freedom should not be confused with democracy. Individual freedom was severely restricted, if not by the state - by the social organizations a person was brought up with. Marriages across religious cleavages was frowned upon; even a reason for social exclusion. The aforementioned case of a gay teacher being forced to resign is typical contemporary case where religious freedom comes to the expense of a particular person's worthiness and dignity. However, religious freedom has changed from a strategy to contain and appease opposing societal forces - to a principle to make private moral judgments public.
One might ask if the Rotary can exclude people below a certain income threshold from membership, why can a school or a political party not be exclusive in their hiring and firing? There is certainly a good argument to be made. After all, political parties entertain ideologies which assume the exclusion of other-thinking people. However there are cases of the exclusion of the excluded and there are cases of the exclusion of the included. A case of exclusion of the already excluded is for instance when a socialist applies for membership of a liberal party. When his membership is denied, he is not more or less deprived than before. However when a member of the in-group is excluded, exclusion of the included, deprivation can be deep: lost of social relations, income, livelihood, personal belief... In such cases, the personal deprivation should be brought in the equation when considering exclusion versus someone's right to exert its personal freedom within a restricted social context. Moreover, the argument of religious freedom as a political strategy has become weaker, as inclusion or exclusion in this case does not serve societal appeasement as a goal. Religious cleavages are not featuring in Dutch society as they did in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, news coverage on Islamic extremism in Holland would suggest that religious cleavages are still apparent. Perhaps they are, but that doesn't necessarily result in appeasement through religious freedom as a political strategy. The social parameters are different, the Netherlands is no longer divided in three more or less equally sized religious and ideological groups, rather the Dutch discomfort with Islam or a small section of orthodox Christianity actually applies to a small minority groups. In some cases religious freedom as a strategy will even cause conflict, rather than appeasement. (Imagine allowing circumcision on young girls as a policy of religious freedom... I think that would anger large sections of the population, possibly even resulting in conflict.)
To bring this discussion to a (temporary) close, I'll make up a sum of the particular case of the gay Dutch teacher. In this case there is no reason to assume the teacher is not abiding by the school's rules (he probably had no relationship a time of appointment), he was part of the in-group, but now excluded. This has come at a great personal cost: lost of income and livelihood. The appeasement resulting from this decision to exclude is minimal. Perhaps, at the school some parents and teachers are for or against, but there's no reasonable threat of broader social conflict. At the personal level there is not any evidence that his functioning as a teacher is compromised by his private relation; to loose out on a teacher may even come at the direct expense of his students and the students' parents.
This is only one in many cases of exclusion of the included in the Netherlands. Therefore, it seems like religious freedom as a strategy should loose ground on a case by case basis to the merit of the respect of individual dignity and worthiness. exclusion,homosexuality,liberalism,religious freedom,Netherlands
Blogger in China
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Labels
- politics (61)
- Christianity (56)
- environment (49)
- news (43)
- Christendom (39)
- Netherlands (38)
- Gay (35)
- Church (34)
- homosexuality (34)
- USA (33)
- global warming (27)
- life (24)
- social justice (24)
- Bible (23)
- China (22)
- Travel (19)
- geloof (19)
- Amsterdam (16)
- ChristenUnie (16)
- video (15)
- art (13)
- sex (11)
- EU (10)
- blogging (10)
- fun (10)
- Chinese (9)
- UN (9)
- movies (9)
- music (9)
- New York (8)
- Jesus (7)
- sustainability (7)
- Beijing (6)
- books (6)
- literature (6)
- India (5)
- Labels (gescheiden door komma (5)
- Poetry (5)
- boeken (5)
- creation (5)
- industry (5)
- photography (5)
- read (5)
- Los Angeles (4)
- biologie (3)
- evolution (3)
- love (3)
- story (3)
- technology (3)
- work (3)
- Afghanistan (2)
- Gedichten (2)
- Indonesia (2)
- Iraq (2)
- Jacques Brel (2)
- San Francisco (2)
- Tiananmen (2)
- Vietnam (2)
- e-books (2)
- father son relation (2)
- internet (2)
- mandatory military conscription (2)
- vacation (2)
- 1989 (1)
- Bali (1)
- Cui Jian (1)
- God (1)
- Islam (1)
- Israel (1)
- Italy (1)
- Leiden (1)
- Sony Reader (1)
- Uganda (1)
- WWF (1)
- Washington (1)
- capitalism (1)
- conscription (1)
- dienstplicht (1)
- partnerships (1)
- research (1)
- sustainable development (1)
Sanderradio
The Green Christian's WWW
- Arocha
- Bill Mckibben
- Care of Creation
- Christelijk Ecologisch Netwerk (CEN) (NL)
- Cooling Creation
- Creation Care
- Earth Justice
- Earth Ministry
- Eco-Congregation
- EcoTheology
- Evangelical Climate Initiative
- Evangelicals for Social Action
- Frederica Mathewes-Green
- God's Politics
- Green Church Awards
- Green Patches
- Green Wannabes
- Gristmill Blog
- Joel Gillespie
- Kerk & Milieu (NL)
- Oikos (NL)
- Operation Noah
- Peace Church
- Radix Perspectives
- Republicans for Environmental Protection
- Stichting Kerk en Dier (NL)
- Stop Climate Chaos Campaign
- Stoutenburg (NL)
- The Christian Environmentalist
- The Earth is the Lord's
- The Evangelical Ecologist
- The GeoChristian
- The Trees
- Time to Turn (NL)
- What it’s like
Blogs I like
- American Festivals Project
- Aysem Mert
- Benjamin Winter
- Billy Williams
- Bret Poppleton
- Brett Maxwell
- Claire Buswell
- Dan Price
- Danny Stimac
- Denicio Bute
- Elliot Asp
- Eric Asp
- Eva Ellingsworth
- Faustine
- Finn
- Francien Berndsen
- Geert-Jan & Anne
- Gregory Baus
- Guy de Lijster
- Gérald Bonnard
- Harro van Asselt
- Heidi Sawyer
- Hilko Blok
- Jakob Jabbok
- Jenni Lafferti
- Jenni Lafferty
- Jetske Mateboer
- Jetske Mateboer
- Jill Beebe
- JR Woodward
- Jurren de Groot
- Karel Smouter
- Lee Dubois
- Linda Kitchen
- Maarten Laarhoven
- Marc Laporte
- Marco Pauws
- Marco Pauws (photo blog)
- Maura Grunkelmeier
- Meghan Thomson
- Michael Belgraver
- Naomi Triggs
- Noel Heikkinen
- Rob & Timme
- Ross McDermott
- Sam Kiers
- Shawn Peach
- Suzanne van der Linden
- Todd Watkins
News Links
Other Links
- Zolder 50 - Christian Community
- Kairos - Christian Community in LA
- E4 Equipper Blog - Dream Awakener
- E4 Equipper Blog - Heart Revealer
- E4 Equipper Blog - Story Teller
- E4 Equipper Blog - Soul Healer
- E4 Equipper Blog - Light Giver
- Vrije Universiteit (My Employer)
- Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap der Politiek
- Perspectief - ChristenUnie Jongeren
- Netherlands Institute for International Relations
- Village Enterprise Fund
- Fairfood
- Amnesty International
- Trees for Travel
