Legacy of Slavery and Indentured Labour

Linking the Past with the FutureConference on Slavery, Indentured Labour, Migration, Diaspora

and Identity Formation.June 18th – 23th, 2018 , Paramaribo, Suriname

Org. by IGSR, Faculty of Humanities, IMWO, in collaboration with National Archives Suriname , NAKS, Federasi fu Afrikan Srananman CUS, NSHI and VHJI.

THE SOCIAL POSITION OF CREOLES AND THEIR RELATIONS

WITH THE THREE LARGEST ETHNIC GROUPS IN SURINAMERene R. Bilkerdijk

Ethnicity

The term ethnicity was first used by the American sociologist David Riesman in 1953. The concept is

derived from the Greek ethos a word that again comes from the word ethnikos meaning original birth-

place or heathen.

From the middle of the 14th century to mid 19th century the term more related to racial characteristics.

In the US, the notion of ethnicity around the middle of the last century had the meaning of a polite

term against Jews and other minority groups were they were not considered “as full” (Erikson, 1993: 3

e.v.)

Statements about ethnicity:

The already mentioned anthropologist Thomas Eriksen, known for his work "Ethnicity and National-

ism, Antropogical Perspectives", answers the question why scientists have once again become so inter-

ested in researching ethnicity.

He says: a critical motive for this is the fact that the phenomenon of ethnicity has become very visible

in many communities, making it impossible to ignore it. (Erikson (1993: 1)

1

Around thirty-five major conflicts of the world in 1991 were internal conflicts and most of these con-

flicts can be considered as ethnic conflicts. (Ericson, 1993: 2)

Eriksen says that the concept of ethnicity (ethnic group) is approached from similarities in the classifi-

cation of people and group relationships. He refers to Banton (1967) who indicates that race has to do

with categorizing people while ethnicity has to do with group identity. He argues that ethnicity in gen-

eral relates more to the identification of "us", while racism is more oriented towards the categorization

of "their". Because ethnicity can occur in different forms, and because ethnic ideologies have the inten-

tion to emphasize commonality among the members of the group, the difference between race and eth-

nicity remains problematic. (Erikson, 1993: 3 ff.)

The Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia describes ethnicity as a socio-cultural identity, which connects a

certain group of people or a number of population groups. The concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea

that members of certain population groups identify their selves with common factors, such as

nationality, tribal relationship, religion, language, culture or history. The common "heritage" is

ethnicity. In daily usage this word still applies to minority issues and race relations, but in social

anthropology it refers to aspects of relationships between groups that respect themselves and are

culturally differentiated. Ethnicity studies in large and dominant groups are less relevant than in

minorities.

Fredrik Barth was a Norwegian anthropologist and the author of 'Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, the

Social Organization of Culture Difference', which broke existing views on ethnicity and posited a dif-

ferent view. According to Barth, it is not the case that the cultural-bearing property of an ethnic group

is their main characteristic. He assumes that ethnic groups themselves are categories of ascription (at-

tribution) and identification. They have the characteristic to organize interaction between people and

thus there is a social organization. From this, he concludes that ethnic groups must be defined from

within, from the perspective of its members.

The main point in a study of ethnic groups should not be the composition of the groups and their history,

but the ethnic boundaries and the maintenance of those boundaries. Barth disputes that ethnic groups

must be within a certain territory.

He thinks that in ethnic groups there are groups to which membership is granted on the basis of certain

characteristics and that it is cross-border. A group that can identify itself based on the characteristics.

2

The crucial criterion for Barth is that membership of an ethnic group must be recognized by the mem-

bers themselves.

According to Barth, the boundaries of ethnicity are completely subjective, they are determined by the

actors themselves. The boundaries are not consistent and will not always remain exactly that way. Eth-

nic groups provide internal solidarity satisfaction through the virtues of membership, while they are usu-

ally formed for purposes of a certain symbolic, helpful and material nature. (Barth, 1969: 10 e.v.)

According to Ralph Premdas, ethnicity contains 3 components:

- A collective consciousness

- There is a Foundation of kinship (agreements)

- Behavioral Propensities (behavior, inclination)

Above all, ethnicity relates to the collective group consciousness.

It is a sense of identification with a larger community.

It relates to the perception that a large group of people have a common identity, which is also seen by

others.

Ethnicity is like nationalism and therefore ethnic consciousness can be traced back to ethno-national-

ism sub-communities each with a consciousness different from other comparable groups. The basis of

affinity can be traced back to alleged communalities such as language, religion, traditions, region etc.

Premdas cites Clifford Geertz who calls these factors '' primordial '' (original, fundamental).

The primordial factors are the objective (real) factors that underlie ethnic identity and consciousness. It

is also not important that scientific facts confirm the accuracy of group claims. (Ralph Premdas 1993:

23 ff.)

Edward Dew, in The Difficult Flowering of Suriname, states that all communities in the Caribbean are

of a plural nature. In Suriname, however, there is a much more complex social mosaic. There is an

amazingly wide variety of racial groups and within each of these there is again a split into subcultural

groups. Dew describes M.G. Smith who indicates that pluralism occurs because of the distribution of

the Creoles in a lightly-tinted Afro-European and a large, in terms of race, much darker traditional peo-

ple's community, in the working-class districts and inland. Both can be distinguished in religious be-

3

lief, family structure and customs. The author sees as diverse subgroups within the population groups,

the lighter-colored Creole, Sanatan, Hindustani Muslims, Creole Evangelists and Roman Catholics and

others. Dew also talks about the light and thus about hybrid forms with the black race. (Edward Dew,

1978: 4 e.v)

Anouk de Koning, in fact, also indicates that her research shows that the Creole certainly has race ele-

ments.

She says:

Many of those who are identified as Creole also claim to be more mixed origins.

(De Koning, 2011: 12 - 27)

Considering the Surinamese reality we have to be careful when we have to go along with the principles

of authoritative scientists, in defining ethnic groups in our country and certainly when it comes to the

Creole group.

According to Jack Menke, social scientists in our region have given negative meaning to cultural plurality

in our region, starting from studies by Furnivall in Southeast Asian countries. Plurality has been erro-

neously associated with instability and conflict, while cultural homogeneity has been associated with sta-

bility and a harmonious society

Within the Surinamese context, according to Menke, in his article "Official Statistics and the Social

Construction of Ethnicity in Suriname, it was a long time that in colonial history statistics of race were

added to the social and political reality.

Race with skin color as an indicator, has been the most important principle in social classification up to

1950. Official statistics in Suriname were based on skin color (an indicator of race). This was

constructed in the slave period but also in immigration in the 19th and 20th century.

After the Suriname census of 1950, race with skin color as an indicator went into the background

while ethnicity became the main classification of the population. In 1964 and 1971 the meaning of the

term ethnicity changes. The report of the 1974 census states that the ethnic differences in Surinamese

society are more cultural than biological.

(Mencke, 2008: 140)

4

However, the discussion about the proper definition of an ethnic group will continue for a long time.

Thus says La Guerre in the conclusion of his The crisis in ethnic theorizing (1999)

the following:

It is virtually impossible to construct a theory that could apply to all places at all times

It would have been better to focus on a cluster of variables.

He further calls Erikson who says:

For ethnicity to come about, the groups must have a minimum of contact with each other, and they

must entertain ideas of each as being culturally different from themselves. If these conditions are not

fulfilled, there is no ethnicity, for ethnicity is an essential aspect of a relationship, not a property of a

group.

Joris Neyens states that the substantive aspect is probably one hundred times more problematic than

the semantic one. Anyone who engages in the study of ethnicity can not ignore the fact that there is no

conclusive definition for the phenomenon. If one thing about ethnicity can be said to be completely

correct and that every researcher will agree, is the fact that there is absolutely no unanimity about the

way in which ethnicity can be defined.

He thinks that the essence of an ethnic group is a psychological bond that the people of a certain group

have with each other and with the objective criteria, which makes them different from - or make them

think that they are different from all non-members of the group. the group. He goes on to say that since

it is a psychological bond and therefore arises in the psyche, it is not necessarily the reality that is im-

portant to the members of a group, but what they see as reality in their psyches. If they have in mind

that they are related to each other, that is sufficient.

To summarize, the scientists quoted in the definition of an ethnic group for community of:

language, religion, region, traditions

history, culture, nationality

a collective consciousness

a foundation of kinship (agreements) -

5

For me, however, the question remains what the minimum requirements must be to belong to an ethnic

group. According to science physical characteristics no longer apply. But how can we understand the

large group of denominators of the ethnic group mixed? What did they mean by mixed? Did they join

the census with the current scientific views that you indicate yourself on the basis of the nowadays

mentioned criteria?

If a person identifies himself as a member of the ethnic group mixed, that should mean that there also

must a mix of language, religion, traditions and other characteristics.

However, this is practically never the case. I maintain the position that in Suriname we still refer to

ourselves and are also referred by others, more because of our physical characteristics that we have in-

herited from the ancestors. In Suriname, we are not all white or black people who distinguish ourselves in cer-

tain areas.

Some examples:

Publication of the police:

Washed up a corpse:

Age about 30 years.

Length 1.75

Ethnicity: Creole.

What happened:

In fact, the police still looked at the physical characteristics of the person. Here it is certainly a dark

colored person with frizzy hair.

A Chinese comes on the television and calls himself a Maroon.

What happened:

Whole Suriname will laugh.

But also in America a black Muslim is always called a Afro-American.

Is that because of his religion, culture, feed, more wife’s and political ideology ? No just because he is

black. A white Muslim will never be called black.

For me, the phenotype must also continue to apply in the Surinamese situation when referring to an ethnic

group.

6

Previous studies on ethnicity in Suriname where the Surinamese Creole also is mentioned.

(Speckman, Renselaar, Verberk, Scheepers, Hassankhan and Ligeon).

Creoles and Hindustanis who were the greatest ethnical groups for decades were never appreciative of

each other (Speckman, 1963: 88, Renselaar, 1963: 103, and IGSR survey 2015). Ligeon 1993 differs

somewhat from the conclusions, but in any case, she does not saw an intimate friendship between the

two population groups.

For another large group, the Javanese, Creoles and Javanese, according to studies, have sufficient re-

spect for each other, as a result of which an ethnically oriented struggle has not been in line. Superlan,

(1976: 95 e.v.), In his study "The Javanese in Suriname, Ethnicity in an ethnically plural society",

comes to the conclusion that there are no significant tensions between Javanese and Creoles. He states

that they even behave as a Creole when they contact Creoles.

Renselaar also came up with the findings that Javanese and Creole not having a lot of trouble with each

other, while Speckman showed that the Hindustani could also could live with the Javanese.

Table 10. Creole attitude towards Javanese and Hindustani

______________________________________________________________________________

Positief negatief neutraal geen mening

Javanen 76,3% 3,5% 18,8% 11,4%

Hindoestanen 2,8% 83,3% 13,9% -%

_________________________________________________________________________

( Bron: Renselaar, 1963:103)

7

Tabel 11. Hindoestaanse houding tegenover Javanen en Creolen.

______________________________________________________________________

Positief negatief neutraal geen mening

_______________________________________________________________________

Javanen 76% 3%0 1% 18%

Creolen 9,5% 63% 9,5% 16%

__________________________________________________________________________

(Bron: Speckman, 1963; 88)

Verberk, Scheepers and Hassankhan conclude that there must be negative prejudices, but they taught

that there are also be subtle and hidden prejudices in the Surinamese society. They considered it neces-

sary to conduct an in-depth further investigation.

Ligeon used the starting point of Tajfel and Turner during her study. They assume that individuals

count themselves as a social group because of the need for this. The more they will positively identify

socially with their own group they will have a predominantly negative image of other groups.

She says it is striking that there are high percentages for the negative statements against the own Cre-

ole group. For example, 71% agree that Creoles waste their money. No less than 72.6% agree that Cre-

oles consider their own group to be enjoyable.

The opinion about the Hindusans was that 77.4% of the Creoles felt that they are hard workers. That

they would be unreliable found 38.7% of Creoles and 67.0% confirmed their alcohol consumption.

The Creole found that 62.2% of the Javanese are tidy. Their submissiveness, snubbing and easy adap-

tation are amply confirmed by 59.9%, 63.2% and 57.6% respectively. That Javanese would be stupid

was contradicted for 64.1%.

Her conclusion is that we can assume that the hypothesis as formulated by Tafjel and Turner with re-

gard to Creoles has been rejected as a positive attitude towards the Creole in relation to their own

group is negatively associated with a negative attitude towards other groups.

8

The accused criticism by Creoles about the other population groups was, in her view, not important

enough to state that the Creole looked down on them. (Ligeon, 1993)

Results of the 2015 IGSR quantitative field study

The first question about how the Creole thinks about other ethnic groups had to produce a general

picture. It has been asked to the respondents which ethnic group have the most, sufficient, little or least

appreciation in the eyes of the Creole

Table 13. Give a rank number from 1 to 4 to the Creole population

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid most appreciation 54 54.0 54.5 54.5

sufficient appreciation 41 41.0 41.4 96.0

little appreciation 2 2.0 2.0 98.0

least appreciation2 2.0 2.0 100.0

99 99.0 100.0Missing 1 1.0Total 100 100.0

9

a. Code etnische groep (sample unit) = 1

Table 13. Give a rank number from 1 to 4 to the Hindustani population

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid

most appreciation 36 36.0 36.4 36.4

sufficient appreciation 47 47.0 47.5 83.8

little appreciation 12 12.0 12.1 96.0

least appreciation 4 4.0 4.0 100.0

Total 99 99.0 100.0Missing System 1 1.0Total 100 100.0

a. Code etnische groep (sample unit) = 1

Table 13. Give a rank number from 1 to 4 to the Javanese population

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid

most appreciation 32 32.0 32.3 32.3

sufficient appreciation 47 47.0 47.5 79.8

little appreciation 15 15.0 15.2 94.9

least appreciation 5 5.0 5.1

Total 99 99.0 100.0 100.0Missing System 1 1.0Total 100 100.0

10

a. Code etnische groep (sample unit) = 1

Table 13. Give a rank number from 1 to 4 to the Maroon population

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

PercentValid

most appreciation 35 35.0 35.4 35.4

sufficient

appreciation42 42.0 42.4 77.8

little appreciation 12 12.0 12.1 89.9

least appreciation 10 10.0 10.1 100.0

Total 99 99.0 100.0Missing System 1 1.0Total 100 100.0

In answering this general question, the Creole indicates that the most and sufficient appreciation was

for their own group, followed by the Hindustani population.

It is striking that the Maroons as well as Afro-Surinamese score the least high in this general picture.

The general picture in which the respondents were asked which ethnic group has the most or sufficient

appreciation in the eyes of the Creole, indicates cumulatively 83.8% for Hindustani, 79.8% for the Ja-

vanese and 77.8% for the Marron. The Creole ethnic group scored 96% at the Creoles themselves.

In fact, the research could stop here if it were not the case that the strong suspicion existed in advance

that the respondents would not want to expose themselves about their actual feelings when asking gen-

eral superficial questions. Verberk, Scheepers and Hassankhan had already warned about this and

pointed out the subtle and the hidden.

The questionnaire was therefore composed in such a way that the "hidden" one had to come up.

11

The self-image of the Creole.

Summarizing:

In assessing how the Creole thinks about itself and how about other groups, I have made a distinction

in progressive making it possible to always be able to rise on the social ladder and the norms and

values that are attributed to themselves.

When it comes to be thinking and working for a better position in de society, the Creole indicates that

they are less doing that.

For example, only 4% indicate that they are sparing, laziness at the Creole scores 65%, 73% thinks that

the Creole spends more than they earn while only 17% indicates that they are moving forward through

hard studying. Other conditions for progress, including supporting each other and acting as a unit score

low, respectively 11 at 21 percent. (for more questions see appendix)

Important norms and values that the Creole itself ascribes.

- 61% find tolerance towards other population groups,

- the majority of the Creole (66%) also indicates that they do not discriminate

- 42% indicates that Creoles generally are reliable persons

- reliability in politics scores 41%.

- That Creoles often help others is confirmed by 44% of the respondents

- 92% of them think they are not stingy and the same percentage thinks that they do not just think

of themselves.

- Only 4% of Creoles indicate that they do not adopt being real Surinamese.

Making negative statements to one's own group is restricted to the category that relates to the social

possibilities for progress and in my opinion does not appear to be such a criticism that they find them-

selves "less" than other Surinamese.

Compelling negative criticism about the possession of norms and values, for example that they them-

selves discriminate, are unreliable, take bribes or give or stink, scores low at the Creole. As carriers of

values and norms, the most essential in a civilized society, the Creole sees itself as number 1.

12

How does the Creole think about the other large ethnic groups in Suriname? Respectively

the Hindustani, the Javanese and the Maroons.

summarizingTable 39. Assigned properties by the Creole to other population groups that are conducive to social

progress.

Hindoest. Javaan Marron

Laziness 4% 4% 10%

Never on time 2% 2% 11%

Savings 84% 6% 2%

Studying for progress 62% 3% 8%

Support each other 46% 32% 4%

Act as a unit 26% 32% 4%

Tabel 40. Toegekende normen en waarden door de creool aan overige bevolkingsgroepen.

Hindoest. Javaan Marron

Honesty 7% 8% 3%

Tolerance 6% 16% 5%

Civilized people 5% 24% 9%

Do not discriminate 2% 9% 4%

Helping others 16% 18% 8%

Politically reliable 9% 1% 8%

13

Think only of itself 50% 12% 16%

Avarice 45% 5% 20%

Never own enough 49% 21% 5%

Arranging each other at the expense of others

57% 16% 1%

Give bribes 59% 8% 2%

Take bribes 52% 8% 4%

Politically unreliable 23% 50% 4%

Not behave nationally 84% 5% 2%

(for more questions see appendix)

When it comes to qualities that are conducive to social progress, Hindustani scores highest in Creole

eyes, followed by Javanese and Maroons.

The Hindu status has the lowest score for owning standards and values, followed by the Marroon. The

Javanese is favorably judged by the Creole. But not on their honesty, the political unreliability and the

discrimination.

There is thus a strong negative thinking of the Creole compared to the Hindu state when it comes to

several important things. Significantly, only 5% of Creoles believe that the Hindustani are civilized

people. 84% of Creoles also say that the Hindus do not behave nationally.

A very large part of the Creole population group do not like Hindustani and attributes strongly negative

characteristics to them.

When it comes to norms and values, then I go with Tajfel and Turner, if they state that the higher the

self-image the more negative they are towards other groups.

14

We see the opposite for the characteristics that have to lead to progress, the Creole indicates that these proper-

ties have a small amount by them and attributes them to the Hindustan.

The question is, however, if the statements were made on the basis of long-standing unproven preju-

dices or if the indicated negative behavior of Hindus and Maroons is indeed experienced daily and as-

sessed as objectively as possible.

Pos says that some prejudices have a long life like, the negro (read Creole) is lazy, the coolie lies and

the Javanese steals. (Pos, 1996: 1)

The IGSR research has shown that most Creoles themselves indicate that a number of negative charac-

teristics that they possess are not prejudices. It is the reality for them. The way they find themselves

lazy and they are never on time are facts for them.

Can we still speak of prejudice in these cases?

Another example of a possible truth to be elevated prejudice can be obtained from the research that

Derveld conducted in June and July 1978 in Tamanredjo with Javanese about certain views of Ja-

vanese towards Creoles and Hindus.

Javanese found that Creoles were not sparing and spend their money on women and partying. (Derveld

1981: 115) These negative aspects are also confirmed by the Creole itself during the IGSR investiga-

tion.

In-depth additional research will have to confirm or falsify several of the Creole’s statements about

themselves. The same applies to their statements to other population groups that may only be preju-

dices and can not be confirmed.

For example, research in companies and determining if it is indeed the case that Hindustani or Javanese

for the most part employ people from their own ethnic group, or make an inventory of frequent late-

15

comers at work or convicted drug criminals by ethnic group.

Creoles have dared to give their opinion about the other groups in the committed research and did not

hide much. Something that I think could have happened in Ligeon's research where she did not succeed

sufficiently in getting the most out of the respondents.

The IGSR investigation gives Verberk, Scheepers and Hassankhan the credit that there was still a lot of

hidden, at least at the Creole, regarding their opinion about the other ethnic groups in Suriname.

The qualitative research.

comparing the quantitative fieldwork with a following qualitative research we also see here that the

Creole sees values and norms as very important. Against individual non-Creoles who in their view

show the social behavior they want to see, there are no notable objections in those individual persons.

That the Creole does not rally all members of a certain ethnic group, is shown by the answers given to

the question if their daughter is allowed to marry someone from another population group.

All interviewees answered this question with yes. After all, it is the choice of the daughter. The rela-

tionship with the son-in-law will depend on his attitude.

About the social position of the Creole one is quite skeptical. It is not what the being has to do. Often

people are lazy than tired. Creole pupils cause the most inconvenience in the classes and do not study

optimally to get ahead.

5. Answering the question if a violent ethnic struggle will ever occur in Suriname.

In the IGSR study, the Creole has such negative characteristics in the moral ethical area on the Hindu's

forehead that we certainly had to wonder how it is possible that both groups can live together. It has

16

been mentioned by me that the fraternization politics, religion and also a mutual dependency relation-

ship have played a role here. In general, however, close friendship did not arise between the Creole and

other population groups.

In neighboring Guyana, unfortunately, we have had serious racial riots between Creoles and Hindus in

the 1960s. Fortunately, we did not have these violent incidents in Suriname.

I can mention a few reasons for this.

1. The fraternization policy.

Questions to answer:

Is it because of the VP that Creoles and Hindus as competitors of each other, have mastered each other

and no significant excesses have taken place between them ?.

Have we really become brothers and sisters in the figurative sense, and do we now love each other at

least to a reasonable degree?

Based on definitions of what we need to understand under fraternization, it must be determined if the

results of the VP have also been achieved.

Definitions about fraternization:

renewed peace; to fraternize, to reconcile, to make intimate friends

(Dutch dictionary )

Opinions on the Fraternity Policy (VP)

Anne Blanksma says that the cooperation between the National Party of Suriname (NPS) and the

Verenigde Hindoestaanse Partij (VHP) work together in coalition governments from 1958 to 1967 en-

tered Surinamese history as the period of 'fraternization politics'.

The basis for this was laid during the elections of 1955 when the NPS and VHP went together for the

first time. Within the NPS, a power struggle had broken out between the ruling elite of light-colored

Creoles and a new generation of politicians from the black popular mass. This battle led to two divi-

sions of the NPS: the Party Suriname (PS) in 1951 and the Surinam Democratic Party (SDP) in 1955.

For the NPS, the alliance with the VHP was a strategic alliance to stand stronger against these rival

parties. For the VHP in turn, cooperation with the NPS was an opportunity to join the government and

17

eventually change the electoral system. The VHP, in the personification of its political leader Jagger-

nath Lachmon, also provided an ideological foundation for the fraternization coalition. In the govern-

ment, the largest population groups (read: Hindustanis and Creoles) should be represented as a guaran-

tee for the peaceful coexistence of all ethnic groups in Suriname while retaining their own cultural

identity.

Tjon Sie Fat (2004: 2) is cited of which he thinks he rightly points out that the fraternization policy had

a different meaning for most Creole parties in Surinam. For them, fraternization politics ultimately

meant assimilation to one Surinamese culture

(thesis Anne Blanksma, 2005: 25 ff.)

Peter Meel states in his article '' Verbroederingspolitiek en nationalisme: the decolonization issue in

Surinamese politics '' that the roots of the fraternization policy go back to the early fifties. In these

years Surinamese politics was dominated by a group of light-colored Creoles. They occupied the

majority of the States seats, held the management positions at the departments, carried government

responsibility and controlled education and the media. In social and cultural terms they focused

primarily on Dutch standards and values. Although the States of Surinam the representative body were

elected according to universal suffrage since 1949, the political awareness of the population was little

developed.

Meel says the following about the purpose of the fraternization policy:

According to Pengel and Lachmon, their emancipation pursuit would only succeed if they were to take

a joint action against the establishment. For this reason they decided to enter into a partnership and to

launch a new policy under the denominator of fraternization. With their fraternisation ideal, they

propagated a policy aimed at transcending the existing social and ethnic contradictions, especially

those between Creoles and Hindustanis. The political development of Suriname, according to Pengel

and Lachmon, also demanded a policy of harmony and consensus, which should benefit all

Surinamese, regardless of their racial or social origin. The use of ethnicity and class as instruments to

exclude groups from social life, they regarded as a colonial legacy that had to be settled for good.

(Meel, 1994: 7 e.v.)

18

Breeveld, argues that the fraternal politics (VP) had no theoretical foundation and both Lachmon and

Pengel had their own interpretations about this.

He indicates that Lachmon with fraternal politics meant the peaceful co-existence of the different eth-

nic groups; while Pengel was more concerned with the merging of different ethnic groups. He goes on

to say that both Pengel and Lachmon deserved praise for the policy pursued by them with regard to

peaceful coexistence and we had no excesses here. (Breeveld, 2000:188 e.v.)

(But is peaceful coexistence the same as fraternization: see definitions)

Sedney claims that the Fraternity Policy is more pretentious than a collaboration between the NPS and

the VHP. And also more than a political alliance between Pengel and Lachmon. The collaboration

lasted 12 years and important issues were discussed during that period and impressive milestones were

struck.

Lachmon called this period the culmination of his political career. Sedney states that indeed the VHP

won the biggest profit in the political electoral area, dominant position, and in the social and financial

field.

Lachmon could no longer be labeled as being a racist and was able to press his opposition against the

government of the '' Creole '' Ferrier with much less pressure. The arrival of Pengel in the States

relieved Lachmon from ethnic pressure. In the longer term, benefits for Lachmon were the divisions

within the Creole camp and the certainty of government for a large number of years. . (Jules Sedney,

1997: 34 e.v.)

Has fraternity been achieved?

In any case, the scientists quoted have not been able to demonstrate that the VP has led the Hindustanis

and Creoles to love each other and have become close friends.

Certainly the political leaders Lachmon and Pengel have also had an influence on the population to

show them that there could certainly be political cooperation between Hindus and Creoles. Fraterniza-

tion, however, is much more than peaceful coexistence.

19

Studies on ethnicity and ethnocentrism in Suriname show that there has not been a case that Creoles

and Hindus consider each other as brothers and sisters. Creoles do not like Hindustani.

However, I do state that with probability bordering on certainty the VP has contributed so that in every

case no large-scale forms of ethnic violence have manifested themselves in Suriname. Both Pengel and

Lachmon had the authority to prevent escalations.

But, should Pengel and Lachmon, rather give the VP the name of peaceful coexistence before Nikita

Chroesjtsjov did that in 1956?

Were the figureheads of the VP anyway brothers themselves?

In 1967, the VP came to an end, the only reason mentioned in the historiography is that the NPS no

longer wanted cooperation with the VHP. In other words, the fraternization of our people was only de-

pendent on the cooperation of two political parties the NPS and the VHP and there has never been a

national fraternity policy formulated. I go along with the Breeveld theorem, the VP had no theoretical

support, but it did contribute to being able to live in harmony in the Surinamese society to a reasonable

degree.

The religions professed by the Creole and the principles of them towards people who think differently.

Very important for living together peacefully are values and norms prescribed by religion. As Egger

points out, the popular (the mass) Creole people use rules of both Christianity and Winti religion. The

IGSR survey indicates that only a small group of Creoles calls themselves Winti believers and that the

Creole see himself is in absolute majority as Christian.

20

Tabel 12. What faith confesses the creole Welk geloof belijdt de creool

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent

Valid Christendom 90 90.0 90.0 90.0Islam 1 1.0 1.0 91.0Winti 2 2.0 2.0 93.0Other 2 2.0 2.0 95.0None 5 5.0 5.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0

(Bron: onderzoek IGSR etniciteitsgroep 2015)

What do Winti and Christianity prescribe when it comes to tolerance towards others?

What does the Winti belief say about how we as humans have to live together?

Through the reality of spiritual life, man is able to make something of life in freedom and to make

something meaningful. Wintie do not call out to do bad things to other people, they respect their

beliefs and also ask for a respect. Winti is the constant search for, or rather, the creation of balance or

harmony between the individual, his social, esoteric and natural environment.

With winti it is about promoting the higher self through positive attributes of the human mind such as

tolerance, generosity, gratitude, patience and sense of responsibility. These are things that generate

happiness in ourselves and others. If one knowingly disrupts the relationship with oneself or with his

environment, that could lead to a weakness (weakened). Winti regulates human behavior which is

important for the good in the family or community. It stimulates the sense of community, unity and

respect for life. It helps the individual to understand himself and inspires him to live constructively and

satisfactorily with himself and with others (www.culturu.com)

There are no reports that the winti religion considers other beliefs as inferior or that they are being

stirred up against different thinking.

The winti religion certainly plays a role in the believer's Creole winti-conductor, as a result of which he

has always been tolerant to other believers.

21

The Christian religion

The 90% Creoles who call themselves Christians must adhere to the rules of the Bible.

We can be very brief about the biblical starting point for tolerance and nonviolence.

What does the Bible say about tolerance and peaceful living side by side?

In Colossians 3:13 it says: "Endure one another and forgive each other if someone has something to

blame for, as the Lord has forgiven you, you must forgive one another."

What does Christ himself said:

Jesus Christ said in his Sermon on the Mount: if someone hits you on your right cheek, turn him to the

other "(Matthew 5:39).

It is clear that Christianity also advocates nonviolence and certainly also contributed and will continue

to be able to live in a peaceful Surinam.

But also our Hindustani Surinamese, largely believers in Hinduism, we have to give sufficient credit

for our peaceful model of living together. After all, Hinduism preaches peacefulness and nonviolence.

Apart from the VP and the religion, there was also a dependency relationship between the two largest ethnic

groups. The Creole depends on a significant part of the daily food on the Hindustani,

who are working in the agricultural sector. But also the Hindus are dependent on the Creole consumer for

the sale of their production

I go along with a statement from Andre Loor, in which he states that at the moment that the Hindu

became equal in number in group population and in the economic field, in the seventies of the last

century, the escalation should have come. Since it did not happen, it is not expected that it will ever

come. (Andre Loor during a lecture MOA History)

22

References

Barth, F: 1969,Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston

Blanksma Anne, 2006, Etniciteit en nationalisme tijdens de Surinaamse verkiezingscampagne . Pag. 149 –

185. Amsterdam

Breeveld, Hans, 2000: Jopie Pengel 1916-1970. Paramaribo.

Derveld 1981, F: Politieke mobilisatie en integratie van de Javanen in Suriname : Tamanredjo en de

Surinaamse nationale politiek. Dissertatie, Rijksuniversiteit. Leiden.

Dew E, 1978, The Difficult Flowering of Suriname ethnicity and politics in a plural society. Den Haag.

Eriksen, 1993, T.h., Ethnicity and Nationalism London.

Guerre La, J,: the crisis in ethnic theorizing

Hassankhan M. , Egger J.,Jagdew E., 2013, Verkenningen in de historiografie van Suriname

deel 2. Suriname, Anton de Kom Universiteit.

Koning de Anouk : Artikel Voorbij het multiculturele paradijs : etniciteit en Suriname’s sociale

geschiedenis. (pag 12 – 27)

Lier van R., 1984, Samenleving in een grensgebied, een sociaal – historische studie van de maatschappij

in Suriname. Amsterdam, vierde druk

Ligeon M. , 1993 Een exploratief onderzoek onder Surinamers in Paramaribo. Nijmegen

Meel Peter , artikel Verbroederingspolitiek en nationalisme: het dekolonisatievraagstuk in de Surinaamse

politiek. 641 e.v.

23

Menke, Jack , 2008, Natievorming en natiecreatie in Suriname in stichting Wetenschappelijke informatie

Paramaribo.

Joris Neyens, 2001 : Inleidende studie tot etniciteit in Afrika. Belgie

Premdas, R.1993 The Enigma of Ethnicity, University of the West Indies, School of Continuing Studies.

Renselaar van H.C., 1963 De houding van de creoolse bevolkingsgroep in Suriname ten opzichte van de

andere bevolkingsgroepen (in het bijzonder ten opzichte van de Hindoestanen). s-Gravenhage

Sedney, Jules, 1997 De toekomst van ons verleden. Paramaribo

Verberk G, Scheepers P, en Hassankhan M, 1997 Etnocentrisme in Suriname, artikel uit OSO. Paramaribo

(Blz 133 e.v.)

Other sources

Algemeen Bureau voor de Statistiek. Etniciteit in Surinaamse. Volkstellingen vanaf 1950. Paramaribo,

2005

Internet sites:

www.amnesty.nl/encyclopedie_lemma/1583

Wikipedia

www.africaserver.nl/slavernij

www.culturu.com

Dagblad Suriname 25 maart 2013

Dagblad de Ware Tijd 19 februari. 2018

Loor Andre: Uitspraken MOA geschiedenis opleiding

Pos, Hugo, 1996, Toespraak Vooroordelen in de Surinaamse samenleving. Toespraak op 12 juni 1995 bij

de presentatie van de Suriname- Catalogus van de Universiteitsbibliotheek van Amsterdam.

24