I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:
'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''
So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.
I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:
'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.
Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''
There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.
Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.
This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.
But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.
But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.
The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.
And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.