And if I read the  same documents I would see descriptions of blacks as being lazy, and child like and violent.   I don't think that the perspectives of 19th century white men on non Europeans is that interesting.  

For instance the Fula people were seen as more "intelligent" because of their more Caucasoid features, and people from Ghana to be more "savage" because they objected most vociferously to be enslaved and accounted for a disproportionate % of the leaders of the rebellions.  Congo slaves were favored as they were seen as stupid and more easily forced to endure harsh labor conditions.

It makes no rational sense for planters from a colony with few white men to DELIBERATELY set out to recruit criminals out of India, at a time when labor relations with the ex slaves were poor. 

In any case are you going to argue that today's Australians are more  depraved than the English because a good % of their ancestors were convicts?

You are severely misinformed. The Dutch agreed to give Suriname around the equivalent of U$1.5billion divided over many years. That money has now been fully passed on to Suriname since 1975.

Yea de Dutch done pay down. Dem Suriname peopkle manage dem money better than dem tiefman in Guyana.

Well I would advise you to start learning Dutch, because no such comments were made by the Dutch. Unlike Guyana, Suriname has had a far more integrated society over a far longer period of time. In your quest to maintain you racist expression you see a racist in everything.

You are basically calling Guyanese Indians immoral degenerates and don't see how that is a racist statement.  Blaming the Guyanese Portuguese, who descended from impoverished peasants of Madeira, for the savagery of the Portuguese crown, which occurred 300 years before this group arrived in Guyana.  And you don't see your comments as racist!

Next you will tell me that the Dutch didn't have slavery.  When last I checked the Berbice Rebellion against the Dutch occurred because of the cruelty of the slave masters.  The Dutch were every bit as racist as were other groups.  In fact the reason why a Maroon population doesn't exist in Guyana is that the Dutch, in what is now Guyana, unlike the British in what is now Suriname, organized the Amerindians to become slave catchers!

As to Suriname being more integrated than Guyana.  Hmmmm.  Civil war between the Maroons and Creoles,  and Indian, Javanese, and Creole parties fighting over largesse.  In Guyana at least the PPP and the PNC pretend not to be race based.  Apparently in Suriname they don't even bother with that.

The reason why there is less obvious ethnic competition in Suriname is because NONE of their ethnic groups exceed 30% of the population, unlike Guyana where there are two groups, Indians and Africans/black oriented mixed, who both number around 40% of the population.

Guyana attempts to function as a unified nation.  It hasn't succeeded but that is at least that's  the goal.  Suriname on the other hand is organized as four nations occupying the same space, Indians, Creoles, Maroons and Javanese.  Not saying that one model is better than the other, but it is clearly inaccurate to pretend that Suriname is some integrated nation.

Carib, I mentioned on several occasions that you have this thing about making up stories and then attributing it to the person you are in disagreement with. When are you going to take possession of your own lies?

Whatever your views of the racial situation in Suriname is, it is the best place for racial harmony and integration in the whole of South America and the Caribbean. Even the government, police force, and military is a representative of the racial make up of the population. Both black, Indians, and whites are found in each of them.

You are also confusing the military rebellion and subsequent outbreak of a war between the inhabitants of the jungle with that of the the military controlled city and towns during the Bouterse years. It was not based on race whatsoever, but on the attempt by the military junta to oppress those living in the jungle. As the Dutch had found out before then, such things don't go down well with the descendants of the Maroons and Red Indians. They have their own jungle command. So a battle broke out, but is surely wasn't of a racial nature. That's purely an invention by you.

As for whether the Dutch are racists: Far from it. Why else would Suriname have such a vibrant culture of different races with interracial marriages and shared faith? Just look at the black Chinese commander of the police force,  a partial buck as president, and a Marron (s'Wijdenbosch) as minister. You won't find that in Guyana. They even have black Jews in Suriname for centuries.

20% of Guyanese are of mixed ancestry.  Your point?

Suriname census numbers show the same amount. 

Both countries, and Trinidad, and Belize can be characterized by being multi cultural and multi ethnic with growing % of the population self identifying as mixed.  Suriname is NOT unique.

And are you denying that the Dutch were involved in the slave trade?  Guyanese folklore (Dutch jumbie) suggests that they were rather cruel slave masters, as indeed 1763 also indicates.

This topic sometime ago came up and Kari had a different read on Suriname that you did.  Something about the Indians considering the Javanese to be traitors, because they supposedly sold out to the Creoles when it comes to dividing the goodies between the various ethnic groups.

Guyana has two groups, each roughly 40% of the population at logger heads.  Suriname has FOUR major groups, all more than 15%, but less than 30% of the population.  It looks as if the reason for the lower level of direct conflict is more because none of the groups is powerful enough to attempt to dominate.  Not because Suriname is more integrated than Guyana.

Indeed Guyanese speak Creolese, with features increasingly more determined by geography than by ethnicity. In Suriname each ethnic groups SPEAKS their OWN language.  That suggests to me that the ethnic boundaries are way higher in Suriname than in Guyana. Unless you are about to tell me that every Surinamer speaks at least FIVE languages!

This is now a "Rumshop Conversation"

No relevance to the starting topic

Carib spits out so much bull from stories he makes up and then passes on as factual, one does have to wonder about his sanity and reference material. Next thing he gonna tell us is that the PNC is Guyana's salvation.

JB getting all Shakespearean on us with "tis" or did this gender-confused person mean to say tits?

Post a picture Cheddi and Janet and get dem boys on their knees to start worshiping....wah yah seh?

Vish, I believe JB wants you to comment on the Dynamic Air flight disruption and lack of information to stranded passengers. That's all. Even if there is other stuff going on this thread it's more helpful to not stay away from the dynamic Air comments.

T, I have to disagree with you on this. The many folks who died on the boats coming to Suriname in the 19th century would not agree that they were "selected" for being better cultured and educated than Indians to Guyana.

As for the dutch and racism, man there is so much to be written by Surinamese today about the racial experiences from the Dutch. I seem to recall that the Boers were descendents of the dutch and Apartheid was their handiwork.

I'm not sure how a comparison of the Indian experience in Guyana versus Suriname is really helpful.

The Dutch! Dem ppl dat were cold blooded murderers. In the Moluccan Islands, they kill out many natives and implant Javanese slaves to cultivate the nutmeg and clove. On to this day, dem old ppl tell and re-tell of the horrific colonization. 

Is who talking about cultured and educated Indo migrants, me or Carib? Is this what I am pointing out over and over again. Carib put words in other people mouth and then pretends that it was actually mentioned by the person in question. So let's not let get facts come in the way of Carib's fabrications.

What the Dutch did is select workers who were healthy and capable of doing the work, whilst Guyana received a lot of poor Indo stock.

As for apartheid: guys that's South Africa you are referring to. We are discussing Suriname and Guyana. There were no boers in Suriname. What is wrong with you guys? Poor history education??

Again, as I have mentioned, these are documented details that are readily available in archives in Suriname and Holland. You won't find any Indian in Suriname who would dispute them. It is that same reason why Gautam's book on the Indos in Suriname was ridiculed by the Indian community there. Indians in Trini and Guyana have not gotten over the fact that the Dutch treated the immigrants to Suriname with a lot more compassion than the English did with their immigrants to the colonies. 

Bhai, it is said the Dutchman used to boil the slaves in Berbice out of spite.  

T, stop trying to be disingenuous.

What the Dutch did is select workers who were healthy and capable of doing the work, whilst Guyana received a lot of poor Indo stock.

How different is that from my response about you saying the Dutch were selective about whom they took to Suriname whereas the British were donkaydam (don't care a damn) about taking good stock Indians to Guyana.

As for apartheid: guys that's South Africa you are referring to. We are discussing Suriname and Guyana. There were no boers in Suriname. What is wrong with you guys? Poor history education??

Your narrative smacks of some benign, caring Dutch colonists. I just tried to put perspective. Do you not think I know you're talking about Suriname and Guyana? The perspective is to address your injection about the goody-two-shoes Dutch.

Sorry bro.

What is racist about it. Bet you cannot say.  All you can babble about is how feces is a nice material so you can post it.

What I find interesting is that Mr. T is unapologetic that Indo Guyanese are immoral relative to their counterparts in Suriname, and yet you seem to agree with him.

Mr.  T is enamored with the Dutch and catches a fit if any thing bad is said of them.  The Dutch and the British were equally alike as slave owners and I in the 19th century carried equally bigoted views of the non white populations which they colonized.

Whats fiction about the fact that 1763 indicates that the Dutch were just as awful slave owners.

People like you spout nonsense, than cannot back your claims, and rather than deconstructing the arguments of those who you disagree with, resort to personal attacks.

I made specific points about Suriname.  You are unable to prove me wrong.

Sop why don't you tell us why you endorsed Dynamic, just as you did the other frauds who exploited the fact that Guyanese are gullible and love to support charlatans who disrespect them.

You promoted Universal.  Didn't you?  I am sure some others as well.

Please don't attempt to run away from your comments.

You imply that Indians from Suriname are a better breed than those from Guyana.  You offer NO EVIDENCE to back this, other than some flim flam evidence that some bigoted 19th century Dutch planter probably wrote.

The Dutch jumbie plays a very important role in Afro Guyanese folklore, thie because of the cruelty of the Dutch slave owners. The Dutch neglected Guyana and as a result there were few white men present.  So they had a reign of terror to control the slaves and prevent rebellion.  The result was the 1763 Rebellion which is notable, even if ignored by non Guyanese, because it was the FIRST rebellion where the slaves drove off the white population.  Lacking the support that the Haitian Revolution had, it collapsed, and so was forgotten by non Guyanese historians.

So Mr. T can pretend that the Boers weren't also partially Dutch in origin, and that the Dutch slave owners treated the slaves like employees.

And unless you can indicate that the SAME documents claimed that the "negro" was equal in intellect and morality to the European, which they most assuredly do NOT, I don't care the slightest about what some bigoted Dutch person said in the 19th century when he compared one group of non whites with another.

Those who sought plantation workers didn't care the slightest about how moral they might have been.  They wanted a cheap and exploitable work force.   They (British, Dutch and French planters) valued people based upon how EXPLOITABLE they were.  The Indian was "industrious" and the black was "lazy" because when the Indians FIRST arrived they were easily exploited.  As the Indian became more settled and therefore more able to rebel he became "crafty and untrustworthy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY1bV_TFBcQ#t=83

And you are going to tell me that Suriname is more integrated than Trinidad.

That is an island where some one can attend a Hindu temple, Catholic church and an Orisha palais. 

Evidence being chutney soca parang!

The colonial masters didn't determine ethnic relations in the former colonies.  LOCAL conditions did.