Dutch king and queen are confronted by angry protesters on visit to a slavery museum in South Africa

First, protest’s don’t necessarily need to accomplish anything, people are allowed to be angry.

Second, the black white wealth inequality in South Africa is still insane and the Dutch are partially responsible for that. Plus you can’t really buy groceries from awareness or excuses.

Third, as a Dutch guy I don’t really mind them being uncomfortable for a bit once in a while, keeps them grounded.

First, protest’s don’t necessarily need to accomplish anything, people are allowed to be angry.

Obviously, people are allowed to be angry. The question is whether the anger is productive.

Third, as a Dutch guy I don’t really mind them being uncomfortable for a bit once in a while, keeps them grounded.

Sure, but shouldn't the protest have been, I don't know, elsewhere than the visit to the museum? It's a very "No good deed goes unpunished" - it's a small act, sure, but surely making the museum visit the locus for the discomfort is just discouraging high-profile figures from acknowledging these sins?
- Why?
  
  They made some tokenisation effort to look like they gave a shit, why should that be rewarded?
  
  “Oh we understand you’re still suffering and that we are partially responsible but we went inside that nice air conditioned building and had a guided tour for us after they closed the place down to every other visitor just for us. So like it’s really mean that you’re still angry at us right now”
  
  Man, if your poinit of view is that you want to discourage high-profile people from visiting these museums because their blood is impure or whatever, I don't know what to tell you, other than that all that'll result in is less exposure to these places and these sins.
  
  My point is them visiting a museum means jack fucking shit.
  
  It is not, it keeps the knowledge of the past happenings alive in general population. It doesn't matter if it's part of the court responsibles or marketing or whatever you call it. Media and people will talk about the visit, people will learn there is museum and why. Just like we are now chatting about it.
  
  Thus change that history won't repeat itself get higher.
  
  I guess this is where we're supposed to agree that the status quo is working. Is that the angle?
  
  As long as we don't take NEW advantage of the situation, the current advantage is fine?
  
  Nothing they do will ever mean anything, because nothing can redeem the past.
  
  Adamantly agree. It's token bullshit unless they do something real as a result.
  
  Will wait for that headline.and anger need not always be productive. Sometimes most to all avenues for productive discourse are shut down.
  
  But anger remains a legitimate and reasonable response.
  
  So... I agree with basically everything you're saying here and I believe you've stated it clearly and well.
  
  I think OP's point was not disregard idea that humans should reflect upon mistakes of the past. There was no reward for that unless you meant protesters being rewarded by verbally hurting someone who actually pays respect to the cause.
- Okay, but it is a really good time, to protest this topic.
  
  Imagine the protestors showing up when they visit a chocolate factory. Everyone would be wondering, why they chose the chocolate factory of all places to protest slavery.
  
  Better would be protests everywhere they go.
How are they responsible for that?

Didn't they go over poor and they just happend to build wealth when black people didn't? Why do they have to share with another group of people, no one else does. Even the groups in Africa don't so it's not like a European idea.
- Did this comment make sense in your head?

Remind them where their wealth came from, that real people remain affected by it... More (all) rich people should be confronted this way, if not with violence

When a monarch actually cares about systemic injustice or the origin of their wealth, they just abolish the monarchy.

Make them leave and never come back, that's what most victims want from their abusers.

Maybe putting a spotlight on where the Dutch Slave Trade began?

Isn't that the whole point of the visit? The museum is about the slavery imposed by Dutch colonists on South Africa at the time.
- "Oh look there's grandpa with his collection of severed hands. I think we still have that chair!"
  
  It's hard to take this as anything more than looking sad as conspicuously as possible.
- Though slavery of black people by whites is well pronounced, it was introuced by black people hunting their own, and selling them to Europeans. It still goes on in Africa up to this day by blacks enslaving blacks.
  
  Slavery is not European invention, it's human's invention and has no preference in race. It's based on stronger <> weaker position , e.g. after loosing war, losers became slaves to winners. In Africa stronger tribes attacked weaker ones took their women, killed resistance and sold kids and rest as slaves.
  
  You almost have a well-made point, except that part of it sounds like you are low-key trying to blame black people specifically for the beginning of all slavery.
  
  I'm not blaming I'm just giving history summary.
  
  Beginning of slavery goes further back then US exist, It's probably old as humankind itself. It was practised by Asians, one of first waves of settler in America (long before European arived there ) . African people had slaves for thousands of years. Hell there were European slaves in Africa back then. There used to be slave route going from Europe through Prague in Chechia, where European people had been castrated and taken into Africa while most of them didn't survive the way. You heard about origin of word "Slavs" right ?
  
  But US slavery was indeed started by black people selling black people to white man for profit in Africa. White man didn't want to go futher into Africa because at that time it meant almost sure dead by Malaria and other sickness. Look that up if you don't believe it. There are both books and documentaries about it.
Actually it began in Western Africa
- I don't think they meant location, I think they meant where to place blame, where to direct anger.
  
  The only thing real is our outrage so you can just direct it wherever you want.
Yeah, and where the slavery still still goes on ( *points at people selling their own for commodities )

You don't understand people protesting a tone-deaf experience?

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you legitimately not understanding?

You don't understand why South African people would want to protest the Dutch king and queen?

Sure, the brutal legacy of their genocide looms over the country to this day, but they went to a museum so we good now.

You don't understand why South African people would want to protest the Dutch king and queen?

No, I don't particularly understand why the current Dutch king and queen are being considered responsible for the actions of the Dutch 200 years ago.

Sure, the brutal legacy of their genocide looms over the country to this day, but they went to a museum so we good now.

"of their genocide"

In what way were they, the current Dutch king and queen, involved? If you have some historical tidbit I'm missing, by all means, inform me of the sins of Willem-Alexander.

Going to a museum to pay one's respects, and accompanied by a representative of the people who suffered so, is a positive step, one that should be at least regarded neutrally, not attacked.
- In what way were they, the current Dutch king and queen, involved?
  
  Their inheritance is comprised of stolen riches. Their whole socioeconomic status is a result of the crimes of their ancestors. They didnt commit the crime but they have kept the loot and are still profiting from it.
  
  Their whole socioeconomic status is a result of the crimes of their ancestors.
  
  So, ancestral guilt.
  
  Its not just "ancestral guilt". Like I said : "they have kept the loot and are still profiting from it", And by loot I dont mean only valuable goods but power too. They still benefit from the power imbalance between countries that was created during colonialism. Just look at the world economy and the dynamic between the "economic south" and "economic north"
  
  They are not guilty of colonialism "per se" but they are guilty of perpetuating, and using, the inequality and oppression that colonialism was built on for their own benefit.
  
  So, do you mind telling me whose socioeconomic status isn't a result of the crimes of their ancestors?
  
  Slaves, descendents of slaves, and the poor. You know, most people.
  
  Poor people or slaves could have rich ancestors who enslaved others as well though, single lost war in the medieval Africa could meant rich slaver becoming the slave .
  
  Many descendants of slaves and many poor people benefit from the atrocities of their ancestors, simply to a lesser degree. Short of being part of a completely dispossessed people isolated from broader society, we are all where we are due to the atrocities of our ancestors.
  
  Not even sure about that. Even if you were part of some totally isolated group for tens of thousands of years you might have rape in your ancestry. Inherited guilt doesn't work.
  
  I was born poor but doing pretty well now. So my status started out fine and the moment I started doing well it was solely because of my ancestors? Were my ancestors in the 19th century or so slacking off in the 1990s but got their act together when I graduated college? I am really confused how this process works. How does the spiritual "status" of my ancestors interact with normal matter, why does it seem like sometimes I go to work and do my job is part of why I have money when it is really my ancestors spirits?
  
  Even the descendants of slaves are living in a country slavery helped build.
  
  Right ancestral guilt. Sins of the grandparents visited onto the children. People punished for crimes they didn't commit.
  
  In this case lets talk about African based pirates and other groups enslaving millions of Europeans even before that and after that. Africans were slavers long before Duch arrived and they built riches on selling their own people to white man.
  
  Why are the African people not being blamed for their ancesstral guilt?
- No, I don’t particularly understand why the current Dutch king and queen are being considered responsible for the actions of the Dutch 200 years ago.
  
  We as a species have decided that generational debt and guilt is a good thing. Did your great great grandfather do something bad? This is means you are a bad person and should be punished for it because you benefited. This type of vindictive anti-justice is totally not sapping energy from productive activity and will create a world of cycles of revenge. Embrace it
  
  This type of vindictive anti-justice is totally not sapping energy from productive activity and will create a world of cycles of revenge. Embrace it
  
  I caught your /s, but I'm not sure everyone will, fam
- Did they renounce the inheritance built on human misery and a pile of 20,000 human hands? Or that parts inherited but the sins aren't?
  
  As amusing as I'd find the Dutch royal family ceasing to exist over ancestral guilt, as an anti-monarchist, I don't know how many degrees of separation you require before an inheritance is no longer considered blood-soaked. Is it infinite?
  
  Why is it acceptable to you that the wealth is handed down but ludicrous that the blood is handed down with it?
  
  If someone became an overnight billionaire for murdering your children, how many generations of their kids driving around in Bugattis would it take for you to consider that fortune washed of its sins?
  
  Apparently demanding a wealthy person part with wealth is more upsetting to some people than cutting off people's hands to acquire it.
  
  So you argue that it is infinite, then?
  
  If I can still see the wealth than I can still see the blood.
  
  Anyone who looks closely enough can still see the wealth of the atrocities of our ancestors. So is that a yes? Is it infinite?
  
  Don't exactly need a microscope to see the wealth of the royal family and you can dedicate an entire museum to the atrocities they comitted to grow it.
  
  You really want someone to say "infinite" though. Do you have a point riding on it?
  
  That is a neat trick, how do you do that? Is it like Shingami eyes?
  
  You keep repeating the severed hands bit but that was Belgium, not NL. Educate yourself before meming online.
- Countries are responsible for their actions. That's how that works.
  
  You don't get to rape and murder your way through a continent, continue to benefit from your genocide but escape any responsibility because lol that was the Netherlands but we're the Netherlands, not our problem.
  
  Countries are responsible for their actions. That's how that works.
  
  Okay, so far, we're in agreement.
  
  You don't get to rape and murder your way through a continent, continue to benefit from your genocide but escape any responsibility because lol that was the Netherlands but we're the Netherlands, not our problem.
  
  How far back does your conception of collective and ancestral guilt go, here? Genuine question.
  
  Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
  
  Just the $value of the goods and labour they stole through killing and violence? Extra to account for the wealth that could've been created by everything the dutch stole? Should they have to pay damages for the sheer brutality - the cutting off hands, the concentration camps, etc?
  
  Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
  
  How could I answer that without knowing how far back their guilt is supposed to go?
  
  You answer my question, and I'll have the tools to answer your's.
  
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
  
  In this case, there's no mystery about who did what to whom and what they took. The Dutch and English kept very good records. In fact, the whole colonial project was very well accounted for.
  
  I’m not the person you’re replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
  
  Is there any limit to this principle?
  
  Apparently, otherwise we would have begun the work of dismantling Western imperialism.
  
  Do you think there should be a limit?
  
  I personally think we should work to redress the wrongs we can, and in this case, the West could be doing a lot more to fix their crimes and being a lot less uppity about it.
  
  Apparently, otherwise we would have begun the work of dismantling Western imperialism.
  
  Do you think there should be a limit?
  
  Seemingly controversially, I don't believe in ancestral guilt. As a mixed-race individual, I'm not half-oppressor and half-oppressed. Reparations should be to the extent of bringing others in-line with an equal and whole share of the polity - or the international community, as the case may be.
  
  As such, I would not regard there as being a set number for reparations - however many trillions it takes, it is the responsibility of those who have the necessary resources to assist those who lack the same access to resources. This is not a matter of debts to be 'repaid', it is a matter of recognizing the equal worth and humanity of others, regardless of nation. It is not a matter of guilt when the grandchildren of the grandchildren of the people who did these crimes are, themselves, long dead. These problems arose from division - they must end in unity and brotherhood.
  
  Obviously, there are also more recent crimes to be answered for - these are a debt in a much more real sense, and it necessary for governments to both acknowledge wrongdoing and make compensation to survivors or immediate family under civil law. Though obviously nothing can undo a crime once committed, that is the process that is generally agreed upon.
  
  Wait so guilt is only inherited if it is documented well?
  
  I don't think anyone seriously thinks guilt can be inherited... "Ancestral guilt" is a totally stupid concept, and framing colonial reparations that way is arguing in bad faith.
  
  I thought it would be funny to point out we literally have the receipts of colonialism, but that turned out to be arguing with pigeons.
  
  I am glad the nicer version of the argument you have created for yourself matches up with the argument that you wish they had made.
  
  Ancestral guilty goes back exactly as far as you can trace your ancestory. Lucky for us, that's literally all royalty is.
  
  So if you don't trace your ancestry at all, you have no guilt? Ignorance is innocence?
  
  I am thinking it is like god. You have to believe in it first in which case evidence doesn't matter.
- Every morning they wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of their ancestors.
  
  An actual positive step would be giving the wealth back. A photo op at a museum before hopping on a plane back to their castle doesn't help anyone.
  
  Every morning they wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of their ancestors.
  
  Man, every day we wake up and live a life of luxury, directly benefiting from the atrocities of our ancestors. The only difference here is the scale of that luxury.
  
  I mean, yeah, and I wouldn't blame the current victims of those atrocities for protesting.
  
  Have you given the wealth back from the atrocities of your ancestors?
  
  I get what you're saying, but you have to understand the difference between a middle-class worker versus a literal king and queen. I'm very aware of the opportunities I've been given thanks to where and when I was born, but in terms of actual transferrable wealth, all I really have to give is a 20 year old Honda.
  
  I agree there's a difference, but my issue is with the principle of it. We are not and should not be responsible for the sins of our ancestors, only ourselves. If there is a sin in royal twats being rich, it is that they are rich while others suffer; not that the person who nutted in their grandmother was rich due to war crimes and genocide.
  
  Fair enough.
- By currently enjoying a massive amount of wealth that was extracted from their country and never returned. How is that hard for you to understand?

Nothing at all but turn more people off wanting to help south Africa. They already want to kill all white people and the country is collapsing again . So it's not a big deal

The last time Europe "helped" Africans, it didn't work out so well for us. Instead of helping us, they could just pay the nation back what they took + reparations. South Africa isn't a classroom for beneficiaries of colonialism, it's an active crime scene caused by them.

And as a white South African, I can assure you we aren't in any danger. And collapsing again? When was the first time?

On the other hand, you're right: it's not a big deal. I give this take a 1/5.
- Instead of helping us,
  
  as a white South African,
  
  I can't help but feel there's a certain disconnect here.
  
  Instead of helping us, they could just pay the nation back what they took + reparations.
  
  ... what is that if not help?
  
  What's the disconnect? Do you generally call paying back a debt 'helping the collector'?
  
  White South Africans are literally European colonists. Like, I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but in a literal sense. And not in a "We came by and integrated with the local people" sense, but a "We ended up as a privileged European caste in this country".
  
  I don't know how much 'us' you can use with regards to the oppression of Black Africans by European colonists, since we're apparently discussing collective and ancestral guilt.
  
  Do you generally call paying back a debt 'helping the collector'?
  
  No, but that's because debts are legal instruments. I don't have any choice to pay back a debt, short of getting government goons on my ass. What's more, debts (in the modern sense) are clearly defined and separate from ideas of guilt. This is more like a criminal wronging someone and seeking to later make amends when they see the consequences of their actions upon the victim, which I would regard as the criminal 'helping' the victim.
  
  I'm not a European, so you're wrong there bud.
  
  But more importantly, my identity is with the people I share a culture with. I'm first a South African, then a bunch of stuff, and one thing down the line is white.
  
  You're right that I'm the beneficiary of a racist system. The difference is that I have no issues with affirmative action or redress. You criticising me for being white and for decolonisation is like when people criticise Bernie Sanders for being rich and supporting higher taxes. It's a stupid, reductive non-starter of an argument.
  
  Now that my race is out of the way. My country has been looted by European countries, and it continues to be looted by extractive imperialism. Why can't I ask them to pay us back? Where is the contradiction?
  
  As for making amends = helping, most people would disagree. That's a dumb assertion.
  
  Do you accept responsibility for Elon Musk?
  
  Lol! For many South Africans, he's the guy we'd go back and teach art if we had a time machine
  
  And I'm sure there's plenty of Europeans who would like to go back in time and sink some colonist boats or convince them the ocean is more trouble than it's worth.
  
  I’m not a European, so you’re wrong there bud.
  
  as a white South African,
  
  I think you may be mistaken as to the nature of ancestry, if you think Europeans are guilty for the crimes committed upon Black Africans but your ancestors are not.
  
  But more importantly, my identity is with the people I share a culture with. I’m first a South African, then a bunch of stuff, and one thing down the line is white.
  
  Is that privilege afforded to Europeans?
  
  You’re right that I’m the beneficiary of a racist system. The difference is that I have no issues with affirmative action or redress. You criticising me for being white and for decolonisation is like when people criticise Bernie Sanders for being rich and supporting higher taxes. It’s a stupid, reductive non-starter of an argument.
  
  My point isn't that you're 'wrong' for being for 'decolonization', my point is that this argument is predicated on the concept of ancestral guilt. It's not that Pierre of France, scrubbing toilets in a dingy little restaurant, owes reparations to the countless nations that France has wronged in the past. Modern democratic governments are by and of their people - when demanding blood money from France, you are demanding blood money from Pierre. Insofar as Pierre has a higher standard of living and should assist others to reach his living status, I believe it is appropriate to demand money with that goal in mind. Insofar as the idea that Pierre, born in 1990 and who has never left his little corner of the country, has some form of ancestral debt to be paid, I believe it is inappropriate.
  
  In other words, I think you are (broadly speaking) right, but for the wrong reasons.
  
  As for making amends = helping, most people would disagree. That’s a dumb assertion.
  
  I don't think most people would disagree, but it's semantics in the end.
  
  Again with the guilt! This is a strawman. Can someone else tap in? I'm done for now.
  
  Pug, if you're really looking for answers, consider removing your moral glasses and just look at what people have had taken from them and what they're asking for. Beyond all the emotion and defensiveness and outrage and morality, people are asking for really reasonable things
  
  I find it absurd that you say that, considering that I have explicitly stated that I'm not against people asking for 'really reasonable things'.
  
  Insofar as Pierre has a higher standard of living and should assist others to reach his living status, I believe it is appropriate to demand money with that goal in mind. Insofar as the idea that Pierre, born in 1990 and who has never left his little corner of the country, has some form of ancestral debt to be paid, I believe it is inappropriate.
  
  In other words, I think you are (broadly speaking) right, but for the wrong reasons.
  
  You're refusing to examine your own position when it is questioned, conflating opposition with your principle with opposition to your solution, despite the fact that it is the principle being questioned (the passing of guilt down through generations), not the solution (redistribution of wealth).
How many meals did people like you "wanting to help south Africa" buy?
- Nome, but I lived there for a semester
Zimbabwe 2.0