View allAll Photos Tagged decolonize
Check out a virtual tour of this image through an interactive 360 viewer here: tanjabarnes.com/blog/?post=a-virtual-tour-of-downtown-los...
As featured on Obey Giant:
www.obeygiant.com/headlines/indian-alley
Artists represented in this mural:
"Decolonize and Keep Calm" by Jaque Frague (Honor The Treaties)
"We Are Still Here" by Shepard Fairey, Aaron Hughy, and Wild Life (Honor The Treaties)
Wolf by Becca Midwood
Indian head by Wild Life
The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português) was the first global empire in history. It was also the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999.
Portuguese sailors began exploring the coast of Africa in 1419, leveraging the latest developments in navigation, cartography and maritime technology such as the caravel, in order that they might find a sea route to the source of the lucrative spice trade. In 1488, Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope, and in 1498, Vasco da Gama reached India. In 1500, by an accidental landfall on the South American coast for some, by the crown's secret design for others, Pedro Álvares Cabral discovered Brazil. Over the following decades, Portuguese sailors continued to explore the coasts and islands of East Asia, establishing forts and factories as they went. By 1571, a string of outposts connected Lisbon to Nagasaki along the coasts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia. This commercial network brought great wealth to Portugal.
Between 1580 and 1640 Portugal became the junior partner to Spain in the union of the two countries' crowns. Though the empires continued to be administered separately, Portuguese colonies became the subject of attacks by three rival European powers hostile to Spain and envious of Iberian successes overseas: the Netherlands, England and France. With its smaller population, Portugal was unable to effectively defend its overstretched network of trading posts, and the empire began a long and gradual decline.
Significant losses to the Dutch in Portuguese India and Southeast Asia during the 17th century brought an end to the Portuguese trade monopoly in the Indian Ocean. Brazil became Portugal's most valuable colony until, as part of the wave of independence movements that swept the Americas during the early 19th century, it broke away in 1822. Portugal's Empire was reduced to its colonies on the African coastline, which were expanded inland during the Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, East Timor, and enclaves in India and Macau.
After World War II, Portugal's leader, António Salazar, attempted to keep what remained of the pluricontinental Empire intact at a time when other European countries were beginning to withdraw from their colonies. In 1961 the handful of Portuguese troops garrisoned in Goa were unable to prevent Indian troops marching into the colony. Salazar began a long and bloody war to quell anti-colonialist forces in the African colonies. The unpopular war lasted until the overthrow of the regime in 1974. The new government immediately changed policy and recognised the independence of all its colonies, except for Macau, which by agreeement with the Chinese government was returned to China in 1999.
The Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP) is the cultural successor of the Empire
Origins (1139–1415)
The origins of the Portuguese Empire, and of Portugal itself, lay in the reconquista—the gradual Christian reconquest of the Iberian peninsula from the Moors. After establishing itself as a separate kingdom in 1139, Portugal completed its reconquista by reaching Algarve in 1249, but its independence continued to be threatened by neighbouring Castile until the signing of the Treaty of Ayllón in 1411.
Free from threats to its existence and unchallenged by the wars fought by other European states, Portuguese attention turned overseas and towards a military expedition to the Muslim lands of North Africa. There were several probable motives for an attack on the Marinid Sultanate in present-day Morocco. It offered the opportunity to continue the Christian crusade aspect of the reconquista against Islam. To the military class, it promised glory on the battlefield and the spoils of war. It was also a chance to expand Portuguese trade and to address Portugal's economic decline.
In 1415 an attack was made on Ceuta, a strategically located Muslim city at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea, and one of the terminal ports of the trans-Saharan gold and slave trades. The Battle of Ceuta was a military success, and marked one of the first steps in Portuguese expansion beyond the Iberian Peninsula, but it proved costly to defend against the Muslim forces that soon besieged it. The Portuguese were unable to use it as a base for further expansion into the hinterland, and the trans-Saharan trade routes shifted to use alternative Muslim ports.
Age of Discovery (1415–1542)
Although Ceuta proved to be a disappointment for the Portuguese, the decision was taken to hold it while exploring along the Atlantic African coast. A key supporter of this policy was Prince Henry the Navigator, who had been involved in the capture of Ceuta, and who took the lead role in promoting and financing Portuguese maritime exploration until his death in 1460. At the time, Europeans did not know what lay beyond Cape Bojador on the African coast. Henry wished to know how far the Muslim territories in Africa extended, and whether it was possible to reach Asia by sea, both to reach the source of the lucrative spice trade and perhaps to join forces with the long-lost Christian kingdom of Prester John that was rumoured to exist somewhere in the "Indies". Under his sponsorship, soon the Atlantic islands of Madeira (1420) and Azores (1427) were reached and started to be settled producing wheat to export to Portugal.
Fears of what lay beyond Cape Bojador, and whether it was possible to return once it was passed, were assuaged in 1434 when it was rounded by one of Prince Henry's captains, Gil Eanes. Once this psychological barrier had been crossed, it became easier to probe further along the coast. In 1443 Prince Pedro, Henry's brother, granted him the monopoly of navigation, war and trade in the lands south of Cape Bojador. Later this monopoly would be enforced by the Papal bulls Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455), granting Portugal the trade monopoly for the newly discovered lands. A major advance which accelerated this project was the introduction of the caravel in the mid-15th century, a ship that could be sailed closer to the wind than any other in operation in Europe at the time. Using this new maritime technology, Portuguese navigators reached ever more southerly latitudes, advancing at an average rate of one degree a year. Senegal and Cape Verde Peninsula were reached in 1445.
The first feitoria trade post overseas was established in 1445 on the island of Arguin off the coast of Mauritania, to attract Muslim traders and monopolize the business in the routes traveled in North Africa. In 1446, António Fernandes pushed on almost as far as present-day Sierra Leone and the Gulf of Guinea was reached in the 1460s.
Expansion of sugarcane in Madeira started in 1455, using advisers from Sicily and (largely) Genoese capital to produce the "sweet salt" rare in Europe. Already cultivated in Algarve, the accessibility of Madeira attracted Genoese and Flemish traders keen to bypass Venetian monopolies. Slaves were used, and the proportion of imported slaves in Madeira reached 10% of the total population by the 16th century . "By 1480 Antwerp had some seventy ships engaged in the Madeira sugar trade, with the refining and distribution concentrated in Antwerp. By the 1490s Madeira had overtaken Cyprus as a producer of sugar." The success of sugar merchants such as Bartolomeo Marchionni would propel the investment in future travels.
In 1469, after prince Henry's death and as a result of meager returns of the African explorations, King Afonso V granted the monopoly of trade in part of the Gulf of Guinea to merchant Fernão Gomes. Gomes, who had to explore 100 miles of the coast each year for five years, discovered the islands of the Gulf of Guinea, including São Tomé and Príncipe and found a thriving alluvial gold trade among the natives and visiting Arab and Berber traders at the port then named Mina (the mine), where he established a trading post. Trade between Elmina and Portugal grew throughout a decade. In 1481, the recently-crowned João II decided to build São Jorge da Mina in order to ensure the protection of this trade, which was held again as a royal monopoly. The Equator was crossed by navigators sponsored by Fernão Gomes in 1473 and the Congo River by Diogo Cão in 1482. In 1486, Cão continued to Cape Cross, in present-day Namibia, near the Tropic of Capricorn.
In 1488, Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope on the southern tip of Africa, proving false the view that had existed since Ptolemy that the Indian Ocean was land-locked. Simultaneously Pêro da Covilhã, traveling secretly overland, had reached Ethiopia, suggesting that a sea route to the Indies would soon be forthcoming.
As the Portuguese explored the coastlines of Africa, they left behind a series of padrões, stone crosses engraved with the Portuguese coat of arms marking their claims, and built forts and trading posts. From these bases, they engaged profitably in the slave and gold trades. Portugal enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the African seaborne slave trade for over a century, importing around 800 slaves annually. Most were brought to the Portuguese capital Lisbon, where it is estimated black Africans came to constitute 10 per cent of the population.
Tordesillas division of the world (1492)
In 1492 Christopher Columbus's discovery for Spain of the New World, which he believed to be Asia, led to disputes between the Spanish and Portuguese. These were eventually settled by the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494, which divided the world outside of Europe in an exclusive duopoly between the Portuguese and the Spanish along a north-south meridian 370 leagues, or 970 miles (1,560 km), west of the Cape Verde islands. However, as it was not possible at the time to correctly measure longitude, the exact boundary was disputed by the two countries until 1777.
The completion of these negotiations with Spain is one of several reasons proposed by historians for why it took nine years for the Portuguese to follow up on Dias's voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, though it has also been speculated that other voyages were in fact taking place in secret during this time. Whether or not this was the case, the long-standing Portuguese goal of finding a sea route to Asia was finally achieved in a ground-breaking voyage commanded by Vasco da Gama.
Portuguese enter the Indian Ocean (1497-1542)
The squadron of Vasco da Gama left Portugal in 1497, rounded the Cape and continued along the coast of East Africa, where a local pilot was brought on board who guided them across the Indian Ocean, reaching Calicut in western India in May 1498. The second voyage to India was dispatched in 1500 under Pedro Álvares Cabral. While following the same south-westerly route as da Gama across the Atlantic Ocean, Cabral made landfall on the Brazilian coast. This was probably an accidental discovery, but it has been speculated that the Portuguese secretly knew of Brazil's existence and that it lay on their side of the Tordesillas line. Cabral recommended to the Portuguese King that the land be settled, and two follow up voyages were sent in 1501 and 1503. The land was found to be abundant in pau-brasil, or brazilwood, from which it later inherited its name, but the failure to find gold or silver meant that for the time being Portuguese efforts were concentrated on India.
Profiting from the rivalry between the Maharaja of Kochi and the Zamorin of Calicut, the Portuguese were well received and seen as allies, getting a permit to build a fort (Fort Manuel) and a trading post that were the first European settlement in India. In 1505 King Manuel I of Portugal appointed Francisco de Almeida first Viceroy of Portuguese India, establishing the Portuguese government in the east. That year the Portuguese conquered Kannur where they founded St. Angelo Fort. Lourenço de Almeida arrived in Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), where he discovered the source of cinnamon.
In 1506 a Portuguese fleet under the command of Tristão da Cunha and Afonso de Albuquerque, conquered Socotra at the entrance of the Red Sea and Muscat in 1507, having failed to conquer Ormuz, following a strategy intended to close the entrances to the Indian Ocean. That same year were built fortresses in the Island of Mozambique and Mombasa on the Kenyan coast. Madagascar was partly explored by Tristão da Cunha and in the same year Mauritius was discovered.
In 1509, the Portuguese won the sea Battle of Diu against the combined forces of the Ottoman Sultan Beyazid II, Sultan of Gujarat, Mamlûk Sultan of Cairo, Samoothiri Raja of Kozhikode, Venetian Republic, and Ragusan Republic (Dubrovnik). The Portuguese victory was critical for its strategy of control of the Indian Sea: Turks and Egyptians withdraw their navies from India, leaving the seas to the Portuguese, setting its trade dominance for almost a century, and greatly assisting the growth of the Portuguese Empire. It marked also the beginning of the European colonial dominance in the Asia. A second Battle of Diu in 1538 finally ended Ottoman ambitions in India and confirmed Portuguese hegemony in the Indian Ocean.
Under the government of Albuquerque, Goa was taken from the Bijapur sultanate in 1510 with the help of Hindu privateer Timoji. Coveted for being the best port in the region, mainly for the commerce of Arabian horses for the Deccan sultanates, it allowed to move on from the guest stay in Kochi. Despite constant attacks, it became the headquarters of the Portuguese state in India, with its conquest triggering compliance of neighbor kingdoms: Gujarat and Calicut sent embassies, offering alliances and grants to fortify. Albuquerque began that year in Goa the first Portuguese mint in India, taking the opportunity to announce the achievement.
Initially king Manuel I and his council in Lisbon had tried to distribute power in the Indian Ocean, creating three areas of jurisdiction: Albuquerque was sent to the Red Sea, Diogo Lopes de Sequeira to Southeast Asia, seeking an agreement with the Sultan of Malacca, and Jorge de Aguiar followed by Duarte de Lemos were sent to the area between the Cape of Good Hope and Gujarat. However, such posts were centralized by Afonso de Albuquerque and remained so in subsequent ruling.
Southeast Asia and the spice trade
In April 1511 Albuquerque sailed to Malacca in Malaysia, the most important east point in the trade network where Malay met Gujarati, Chinese, Japanese, Javanese, Bengali, Persian and Arabic traders, among others, described by Tomé Pires as of invaluable richness. The peninsula of Malacca became then the strategic base for Portuguese trade expansion with China and Southeast Asia, under the Portuguese rule with its capital at Goa. To defend the city was erected a strong gate which, called the "A Famosa", still remains. Knowing of Siamese ambitions over Malacca, Albuquerque sent immediately Duarte Fernandes on a diplomatic mission to the kingdom of Siam (modern Thailand), where he was the first European to arrive, establishing amicable relations between both kingdoms. In November that year, getting to know the location of the so-called "Spice Islands" in the Moluccas, he sent an expedition led by António de Abreu to find them, arriving in early 1512. Abreu went by Ambon while deputy commander Francisco Serrão came forward to Ternate, where a Portuguese fort was allowed. That same year, in Indonesia, the Portuguese took Makassar, reaching Timor in 1514. Departing from Malacca, Jorge Álvares came to southern China in 1513. This visit was followed the arrival in Guangzhou, where trade was established and later would be established Macau trade post.
The Portuguese empire expanded into the Persian Gulf as Portugal contested control of the spice trade with the Ottoman Empire. In 1515, Afonso de Albuquerque conquered the Huwala state of Hormuz at the head of the Persian Gulf, establishing it as a vassal state. Aden, however, resisted Albuquerque's expedition in that same year, and another attempt by Albuquerque's successor Lopo Soares de Albergaria in 1516, before capturing Bahrain in 1521, when a force led by Antonio Correia defeated the Jabrid King, Muqrin ibn Zamil. In a shifting series of alliances, the Portuguese dominated much of the southern Persian Gulf for the next hundred years. With the regular maritime route linking Lisbon to Goa since 1497, the island of Mozambique become a strategic port, and there was built Fort São Sebastião and an hospital. In the Azores, the Islands Armada protected the ships en route to Lisbon
In 1525, after Fernão de Magalhães's expedition (1519-1522), Spain under Charles V sent an expedition to colonize the Moluccas islands, claiming that they were in his zone of the Treaty of Tordesillas, since there was not a set limit to the east. García Jofre de Loaísa expedition reached the Moluccas, docking at Tidore. The conflict with the Portuguese already established in nearby Ternate was inevitable, starting nearly a decade of skirmishes. An agreement was reached only with the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529), atributting the Moluccas to Portugal and the Philippines to Spain.
In 1534 Gujarat was occupied by the Mughals and the Sultan Bahadur Shah of Gujarat was forced to sign the Treaty of Bassein (1534) with the Portuguese, establishing an alliance to regain the country, giving in exchange Daman, Diu, Mumbai and Bassein. In 1538 the fortress of Diu is again surrounded by Ottoman ships. Another siege failed in 1547 puting an end to the Ottoman ambitions, confirming the Portuguese hegemony.
In 1542 Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier arrived in Goa at the service of king John III of Portugal, in charge of an Apostolic Nunciature. At the same time Francisco Zeimoto and other traders arrived in Japan for the first time. According Fernão Mendes Pinto, who claimed to be in this journey, they arrived at Tanegashima, where the locals were impressed by firearms, that would be immediately made by the Japanese on a large scale. In 1557 the Chinese authorities allowed the Portuguese to settle in Macau through an annual payment, creating a warehouse in the triangular trade between China, Japan and Europe. In 1570 the Portuguese bought a Japanese port where they founded the city of Nagasaki, thus creating a trading center for many years was the port from Japan to the world.
Portugal established trading ports at far-flung locations like Goa, Ormuz, Malacca, Kochi, the Maluku Islands, Macau, and Nagasaki. Guarding its trade from both European and Asian competitors, Portugal dominated not only the trade between Asia and Europe, but also much of the trade between different regions of Asia, such as India, Indonesia, China, and Japan. Jesuit missionaries, such as the Basque Francis Xavier, followed the Portuguese to spread Roman Catholic Christianity to Asia with mixed success.
First efforts of colonization in Brazil
In 1534, promoting settlement to overcome the need to defend the territory, John III organized the colonization of Brazil through land grants. As of 1520, the Portuguese had realized that Brazil was likely to be disputed, with Francis I of France challenging the Treaty of Tordesillas and supporting privateers. The increase in brazilwood smuggling pressed this effort to effective occupation of the territory, although since 1503 an expedition under the command of Gonçalo Coelho reported French raids on the Brazilian coasts and, in the same year, Martim Afonso de Sousa went to patrol the whole Brazilian coast, banish the French and create the first colonial towns: São Vicente on and São Paulo.
Fifteen longitudinal tracks, ranging from the coast to the Tordesillas limit, were created. This vast lands were donated in form of hereditary captaincies (Capitanias Hereditárias) to grantees rich enough to support settlement, as had been done successfully in Madeira and Cape Verde islands. Each captain-major should build settlements, grant allotments and administer justice, being responsible for developing and taking the costs of colonization, although not being the owner: he could transmit it to offspring, but not sell it. Twelve recipients came from Portuguese gentry who become prominent in Africa and India and senior officials of the court, such as João de Barros and Martim Afonso de Sousa.
Of the fifteen original captaincies (a two-month trip from Portugal), only two, Pernambuco and São Vicente, prospered. Both dedicated to the crop of sugar cane and the settlers managed to maintain alliances with Native Americans. The establishment of the sugar cane industry demanded intensive labor which would be met with native American and, later, African slaves.
Deeming the capitanias system ineffective, the king decided to centralize the government of the colony, in order to "give help and assistance" to grantees. In 1548 he created the first General Government, sending in Tomé de Sousa as first governor and rescuing the captaincy of the Bay of All Saints, making it a royal captaincy, seat of the Government. This measure did not entailed the extinction of captaincies. Tomé de Sousa built the capital of Brazil, Salvador at the Bay of All Saints. The first Jesuits arrived the same year. From 1565 through 1567 Mem de Sá, a Portuguese colonial official and the third Governor General of Brazil, successfully destroyed a ten year-old French colony called France Antarctique, at Guanabara Bay. He and his nephew, Estácio de Sá, then founded the city of Rio de Janeiro in March 1567.
Iberian Union and rivalry with the Dutch (1580–1663)
In 1580, King Philip II of Spain invaded Portugal after a crisis of succession brought about by King Sebastian of Portugal's death during a disastrous Portuguese Alcazarquivir attack on Morocco in 1578. At the Cortes of Tomar in 1581, Philip was crowned Philip I of Portugal, uniting the two crowns and overseas empires under Spanish Habsburg rule in a dynastic Iberian Union. At Tomar Philip promised to keep the empires legally distinct, leaving the administration of the Portuguese Empire to Portuguese nationals, with a Spanish viceroy in Lisbon seeing to his interests. All the Portuguese colonies accepted the new state of affairs except for the Azores, which held out for António, a Portuguese rival claimant to the throne who had garnered the support of Catherine de Medici of France in exchange for the promise to cede Brazil. Spanish forces eventually captured the island in 1583.
The union with Spain entailed both benefits and drawbacks as far as the Portuguese Empire was concerned. Spanish imperial trade networks were opened to Portuguese merchants, which was particularly lucrative for Portuguese slave traders who could now sell slaves in Spanish America at a higher price than could be fetched in Brazil.
The Tordesillas boundary between Spanish and Portuguese control in South America was then increasingly ignored by the Portuguese, who pressed beyond it into the heart of Brazil, allowing to expand the territory to the west. Exploratory missions were carried out both ordered by the government, the "entradas" (entries), and by private initiative, the "bandeiras" (flags), by the "bandeirantes". These expeditions lasted for years venturing into unmapped regions, initially to capture natives and force them into slavery, and later focusing on finding gold, silver and diamond mines.
However, the union meant that Spain dragged Portugal into its conflicts with England, France and the Dutch Republic, countries which were beginning to establish their own overseas empires. The primary threat came from the Dutch, who had been engaged in a struggle for independence against Spain since 1568. In 1581 the Seventeen Provinces gained independence from the Habsburg rule, leading Philip II to prohibit commerce with Dutch ships, including in Brazil where Dutch had invested large sums in financing sugar production.
In 1592, during the war with Spain, a British fleet captured a large Portuguese carrack off the Azores, the Madre de Deus. Loaded with 900 tons of merchandise from India and China, estimated at half a million pounds (nearly half the size of English Treasury at the time). This foretaste of the riches of the East galvanized English interest in the region. That same year, Cornelis de Houtman was sent by Dutch merchants to Lisbon, to gather as much information as he could about the Spice Islands. In 1595, merchant and explorer Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, having traveled widely in the Indian Ocean at the service of the Portuguese, published a travel report in Amsterdam, the "Reys-gheschrift vande navigatien der Portugaloysers in Orienten" ("Report of a journey through the navigations of the Portuguese in the East").This included vast directions on how to navigate between Portugal and the East Indies and to Japan. Dutch and British interest fed on new information led to a movement of commercial expansion, and the foundation of the English East India Company, in 1600, and Dutch East India Company(VOC), in 1602, allowing the entry in of chartered companies in the so-called East Indies.
The Dutch took their fight overseas, attacking Spanish and Portuguese colonies and shipping, allying in turn with rival local leaders, and dismantling the Portuguese trade monopoly in Asia. The Portuguese Empire, consisting primarily of exposed coastal settlements vulnerable to being picked off one by one, proved to be an easier target than the Spanish Empire.
The Dutch–Portuguese War began with an attack on São Tomé and Príncipe in 1597 and lasted until 1663. The war was waged by the Dutch East India Company (established in 1602) and its West India counterpart (1621), commercial ventures whose aim was to take over the trade networks that the Portuguese had established in Asian spices, West African slaves and Brazilian sugar In Asia, the Dutch captured the Spice Islands (1605), Malacca (1641), Colombo (1656), Ceylon (1658), Nagappattinam (1660), Cranganore and Cochin (1662). Although Goa, the capital of Portuguese Asia, Diu and Macau were successfully defended, the expulsion of the Portuguese from Japan in 1639 excluded Portuguese merchants from the highly profitable China-Japan trade. Having successfully prevented the French from gaining a foothold in Portuguese Brazil at France Équinoxiale in 1615, Salvador da Bahia was lost to the Dutch in 1624 (though recaptured by a joint Spanish-Portuguese force the following year) and Pernambuco in 1630. In need of slaves for the sugar producing regions they had captured in Brazil, the Dutch began attacks on the Portuguese trading posts on the west coast of Africa, successfully taking Elmina (1638), Luanda (1641) and Axim (1642). By 1654, Portugal had succeeded in expelling the Dutch from Brazil and Luanda, though its preeminent position in Asia had been lost forever.
Imperial decline (1663–1822)
The loss of colonies was one of the reasons that contributed to the end of the personal union with Spain. In 1640 John IV was proclaimed King of Portugal and the Portuguese Restoration War began. In 1661 the Portuguese offered Bombay and Tangier to England as part of a dowry, and over the next hundred years the British gradually became the dominant trader in India, gradually excluding the trade of other powers. In 1668 Spain recognized the end of the Iberian Union and in exchange Portugal ceded Ceuta to the Spanish crown.
At the end of confrontations with the Dutch, Portugal was able to cling onto Goa and several minor bases in India, and managed to regain territories in Brazil and Africa, but lost forever to prominence in Asia as trade was diverted through increasing numbers of English, Dutch and French trading posts. Thus, throughout the century, Brazil gained increasing importance to the empire, which exported Brazilwood and sugar.
From 1693 the focus was in a Brazilian region that become known as Minas Gerais, where gold was discovered. Major discoveries of gold and, later, diamonds in Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso and Goias led to a "gold rush", with a large influx of migrants. The village founded in 1696, became the new economic center of the empire, with rapid settlement and some conflicts. This gold cycle led to the creation of an internal market and attracted a large number of immigrants. The population grew 750% between 1650 to 1770 and quickly became the largest in Brazil, contributing to the settlement of the interior. 78% of this population being of black people and mestizos, and also New Christians from the north of Portugal and the Azores and Madeira, who settled as important trade agents in the villages around Ouro Preto and Mariana.
The gold rush considerably increased the revenue of the Portuguese crown, who charged a fifth of all the ore mined, or the "fifth". Diversion and smuggling were frequent, so a whole set of bureaucratic controls were instituted. The gold production would have increased from 2 tonnes per year in 1701 to 14 tonnes in the 1750s but then began to decline sharply until exhausting before the end of the century. Gold surpassed the earnings of other products from the colonies and this trade has brought prosperity of Rio de Janeiro and to he kingdom.
In 1755 Lisbon suffered a catastrophic earthquake, which together with a subsequent tsunami killed more than 100,000 people out of a population of 275,000. This sharply checked Portuguese colonial ambitions in the late 18th century.
Unlike Spain, Portugal did not divide its colonial territory in America. The captaincies created there were subordinated to a centralized administration in Salvador which reported directly to the Crown in Lisbon. The eighteenth century was marked by increasing centralization of royal power throughout the Portuguese empire, with the power of the Jesuits, protective of the Indians against slavery, brutally suppressed by the Marquis of Pombal, leading to the dissolution of this religious order under ground Portuguese in 1759. In 1774, the two states of Brazil and the Grand Para and Maranhao merged into a single administrative entity.
The settlers began to express some dissatisfaction with the authorities in Lisbon as the decline of mining made it difficult to pay the taxes demanded by the Crown. In 1789, when it announced a tax of 20% of the gold removed, revolt broke out in Ouro Preto. Encouraged by the example of the United States of America, which had won its independence from Britain (1776-1781), the attempt centred in the colonial province of Minas Gerais was made in 1789 to achieve the same objective. However, the Inconfidência Mineira failed, the leaders arrested and, of the participants of the insurrections the one of lowest social position, Tiradentes, was hanged.
In 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Portugal, and Dom João, Prince Regent in place of his mother, Dona Maria I, ordered the transfer of the royal court to Brazil. In 1815 Brazil was elevated to the status of Kingdom, the Portuguese state officially becoming the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (Reino Unido de Portugal, Brasil e Algarves), and the capital was transferred from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro, the only instance of a European country being ruled from one of its colonies. There was also the election of Brazilian representatives to the Cortes Constitucionais Portuguesas (Portuguese Constitutional Courts).
Although the royal family returned to Portugal in 1821, the interlude led to a growing desire for independence amongst Brazilians. In 1822, the son of Dom João VI, then prince-regent Dom Pedro I, proclaimed the independence, September 7, 1822, and was crowned emperor. Unlike the Spanish colonies of South America, Brazil's independence was achieved without significant bloodshed.
Portuguese Africa and the overseas provinces (1822–1961)
At the height of European colonialism in the 19th century, Portugal had lost its territory in South America and all but a few bases in Asia. During this phase, Portuguese colonialism focused on expanding its outposts in Africa into nation-sized territories to compete with other European powers there. Portuguese territories eventually included the modern nations of Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, Guinea-Bissau, Angola, and Mozambique.
Portugal pressed into the hinterland of Angola and Mozambique, and explorers Serpa Pinto, Hermenegildo Capelo and Roberto Ivens were among the first Europeans to cross Africa west to east. The project to connect the two colonies, the Pink Map, was the Portuguese main objective in the second half of the 19th century. However, the idea was unacceptable to the British, who had their own aspirations of contiguous British territory running from Cairo to Cape Town. The British Ultimatum of 1890 was imposed upon King Carlos I of Portugal and the Pink Map came to an end. The King's reaction to the ultimatum was exploited by republicans. In 1908 King Carlos and Prince Luís Filipe were murdered in Lisbon. Luís Filipe's brother, Manuel, become King Manuel II of Portugal. Two years later Portugal became a republic.
In World War I German troops threatened Mozambique, and Portugal entered the war to protect its colonies.
António de Oliveira Salazar, who took power in 1933, considered Portuguese colonies as overseas provinces of Portugal. In the wake of World War II, the decolonization movements began to gain momentum. In the Portuguese Empire the first major clash occurred in São Tomé in the Batepá massacre of 1953. The Cold War also created instabilities among Portuguese overseas populations, as the United States and Soviet Union tried to increase their spheres of influence. In 1954 India invaded Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and in 1961 Portuguese India came to an end when Goa, Daman and Diu were also invaded. Also in 1961 the tiny Portuguese fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá in Ouidah, a remnant of the West African slave trade, was taken by the new government of Dahomey (now Benin).
But, despite these losses and unlike the other European colonial powers, Salazar attempted to resist the tide of decolonization and maintain the integrity of the empire. As a result, Portugal was the last nation to retain its major colonies.
End of the empire (1961–1999)
The rise of Soviet influence among the Movimento das Forças Armadas's military (MFA) and working class, and the cost and unpopularity of the Portuguese Colonial War (1961–1974), in which Portugal resisted to the emerging nationalist guerrilla movements in some of its African territories, eventually led to the collapse of the Estado Novo regime in 1974. Known as the "Carnation Revolution", one of the first acts of the MFA-led government which then came into power - the National Salvation Junta (Junta de Salvação Nacional) - was to end the wars and negotiate Portuguese withdrawal from its African colonies. These events prompted a mass exodus of Portuguese citizens from Portugal's African territories (mostly from Angola and Mozambique), creating over a million Portuguese refugees - the retornados. Portugal's new ruling authorities also recognized Goa and other Portuguese India's territories invaded by India's military forces, as Indian territories. Benin's claims over São João Baptista de Ajudá, were also accepted by the Portuguese, and diplomatic relations were restored with both India and Benin.
Civil wars in both independent Mozambique and Angola promptly broke out, with incoming communist governments formed by the former rebels (and backed by the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other communist countries) fighting against insurgent groups supported by nations like Zaire, South Africa, and the United States.
East Timor also declared independence at this time (1975), making an exodus of many Portuguese refugees to Portugal, also known as retornados. But was almost immediately invaded by neighbouring Indonesia, which occupied it until 1999. A United Nations-sponsored referendum that year resulted in East Timorese choosing independence, which was achieved in 2002.
The transfer of the sovereignty of Macau to China on December 20, 1999 under the terms of an agreement negotiated between People's Republic of China and Portugal twelve years earlier marked the end of the, Portuguese overseas empire.
Legacy
Seven of the former colonies of Portugal that are now independent nations with Portuguese as their official language, together with Portugal, are members of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries. Today Portuguese is one of the world's major languages, ranked 6th according to number of native speakers (between 177 and 191 million). It is the language of about half of South America, even though Brazil is the only Portuguese-speaking nation in the Americas. It is also a major lingua franca in Portugal's former colonial possessions in Africa. It is an official language in eight countries, including East Timor, where it is co-official with Tetum. It is also co-official with Chinese in Macau.
A legacy of Portuguese intermarriage in Malacca during its time as a Portuguese settlement is the Kristang people.
Museum of Modern Art - MoMA
Exhibition 'The Project of Independence Architectures of Decolonization in South Asia, 1947–1985'
'Models I (Set of 36 photographs)' by 'Madan Mahatta'
DSC00972
In 1950, the Grenada United Labour Party was founded by Eric Gairy, who led a general strike the next year for better working conditions. The 'red sky days' led to universal suffrage, and the GULP soon dominated Grenada politically as decolonization continued in the Caribbean. Grenada became independent on 7 February 1974, with Gairy as Prime Minister after a disputed election. However his opponents declared the election illegitimate and formed the rival New Jewel Movement.
Gairy remained a controversial leader and in 1979 the NJM launched a successful coup while Gairy was out of the country, eventually forming a Marxist-Leninist People's Revolutionary Government under the lawyer Maurice Bishop. Rebuffed by the US (afraid of the spread of communism), Bishop received financial and logistical support from Cuba (angering the United States even more). Bishop moved to modernize Grenada, establishing a stronger police force and building the larger Point Saintes Airport.
The PRG soon began to break apart. Bishop broke against a faction led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, who wanted a power-sharing agreement and eventually had Bishop placed under house arrest on 19 October 1983. A popular demonstration broke out, and a large crowd freed Bishop. Circumstances soon become unclear, but a group of soldiers apparently re-arrested Bishop and seven other cabinet members, including his partner Minister of Education Jacqueline Creft, drove them to the courtyard of Fort Rupert/ Fort George seen here, lined them up against the wall behind the basketball court, and had them all executed by firing squad.
Days later, Hudson Austin overthrew Coard and declared himself head of the Military Council of Grenada, ordering a four-day curfew where violators would be shot on sight. Six days later, supposedly at the request of the Prime Ministers of Barbados and Dominica, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Invasion of Grenada, deposing Austin and arresting Coard and Austin.
Both Austin and Coard were released around 2008 following truth and reconciliation deals. Fort George, perched on the harbor of St. George's is now headquarters of the Royal Grenada Police Force. The bullet-pockmarked basketball hoop and wall remain as well, with a sign:
"In Everlasting Memory of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop
Fitzroy Bain, Norris Bain, Evelyn Bullen, Jacqueline Creft, Keith Hayling, Evelyn Maitland, Unison Whiteman
Andy Sebastian Alexander, Simon Alexander, Gemma Belmar, Eric Dumont, Avis Ferguson, Vince Noel, Alleyne Romain, Nelson Steele
Killed at this fort, Oct. 19, 1983.
They have gone to join the stars, and will forever shine in glory"
Fort George, St. George's, Grenada
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
Report from the 2010 Prince Claus Awards Committee
June 2010
www.princeclausfund.org/en/what_we_do/awards/documents/20...
The Prince Claus Awards
The Prince Claus Fund’s Awards Programme celebrates and brings to
public attention outstanding achievements in the field of culture and
development. Awards are given annually to individuals, groups,
organisations or institutions in recognition of their contribution
within the Prince Claus Fund’s areas of interest.
Each year in December, the Principal Prince Claus Award of EUR 100,000
is presented to the Principal Laureate at a prestigious venue in
Amsterdam in the presence of members of the Royal family and an
audience of 600 international guests. The Prince Claus Awards of EUR
25,000 are presented to the recipients in their respective countries
by the Netherlands Ambassadors.
Procedures
Participants in the Fund’s expanding network of colleagues, partners
and experts in relevant fields are invited to nominate candidates for
the annual Prince Claus Awards, and are requested to provide insights
and give second opinions on potential laureates.
A total of 98 nominations were received for the 2010 Prince Claus
Awards. Research and documentation on these nominations was
considered at a first meeting of the 2010 Prince Claus Awards
Committee on 17 and 18 December 2009. A short list was established and
the staff of the Fund’s Bureau then carried out further research and
gathered extensive second opinions from advisors in the Fund’s
network. On 20-21 May 2010, the Awards Committee met again for
in-depth assessment of the short-listed candidates and the selection
of 11 recommended recipients of the 2010 Prince Claus Awards.
2010 Prince Claus Awards Committee
Peter Geschiere (Chair), Professor of Anthropology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
N’Goné Fall, Curator, Architect, Cultural Consultant, Dakar, Senegal /
Paris, France
Rahul Mehrotra, Architect, Urban Designer, Professor of Architecture,
Mumbai, India / Cambridge, USA
Laksmi Pamuntjak, Poet, Writer, Jakarta, Indonesia
José Roca, Curator, Bogota, Colombia
Fariba de Bruin-Derakhshani is Secretary to the Committee.
Criteria and considerations
The Prince Claus Awards are presented to artists, intellectuals and
cultural operators in recognition of their outstanding achievements
and contributions in the field of culture and development. The awards
are given to individuals, groups and organisations around the globe,
but primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.
Quality is a sine qua non for a Prince Claus Award. The quality of a
laureate’s work is assessed in professional and personal contexts and
for its positive impact on wider cultural and social fields. The
creation of interactions and links between different cultures, the
fostering of commonalities and the initiation of shared cultural
currents are highly valued. The Prince Claus Awards recognise artistic
and intellectual qualities that are relevant in the contemporary
context. They legitimise experimentation and innovation, recognise
audacity and tenacity, support inspirational developments and seek to
enhance their beneficial impact on societies.
Policy
The Prince Claus Fund maintains a broad view of culture that
accommodates all types of artistic and intellectual disciplines. This
open approach encompasses the transmission of culture and achievements
in education, media and the applied arts. It includes fields such as
science and technology that interact with and impact on the domain of
culture and development. Proposals from every cultural field and area
of potential are welcomed. The Fund seeks originality, experimentation
and groundbreaking initiatives. Mutual exchange, interculturality and
the transcending of borders are high on the Fund’s agenda, and it has
a keen interest in vocabularies and vernaculars that develop into
universal languages linking people in different cultures.
The Prince Claus Fund aims to provide protection to culture in places
where it is threatened and to explore ‘zones of silence’. The Fund
continues its interest in previous themes, such as Humour and Satire,
Culture and Nature, the Positive Results of Asylum and Migration, and
Creating Spaces of Freedom.
2010 Theme: Frontiers of Reality
Frontiers of Reality is a crucial theme for contemporary culture and
development. Perceptions of reality vary according to our knowledge
and the cultural, political and social environment in which we live.
In former times, notions of reality were relatively established,
stabilised by fixed conventions and perspectives limited by time and
distance. Information about events and the impact of discoveries
filtered slowly into societies, and the borders and edges of reality
altered gradually. Today, new technologies and media provide increased
and accelerated access, spreading information quickly and bringing
voices from previously isolated or repressed groups. Many new versions
of reality are surfacing. It is the collage of this collective
experience that really makes our world so we need to assimilate and
make sense of these new perspectives.
At the same time, the universal human desire for security and
stability tends to resist knowledge that challenges established
definitions of reality. Communities and societies develop diverse
ways, both subtle and overt, of restricting and limiting alternative
views. The drive for dominance and power leads to aggressive and life
threatening control of the frontiers of reality. Discrimination,
censorship, criminalisation of expression, media distortion,
propaganda, border controls, travel restrictions and militarisation
are forms of reality control.
People who work at the frontiers, often in difficult or dangerous
contexts, are instrumental in bringing attention to different
experiences and cultural ideas. Their explorations and practices break
through current limits. In selecting the theme of Frontiers of
Reality, the Prince Claus Fund aims to honour those who open up
different perceptions and make significant contributions to the
construction of new knowledge, better understanding, empowerment and
greater equity – essential factors for local and global development
and stability.
Recommendations for the 2010 Prince Claus Awards
The 2010 Principal Prince Claus Award
Barzakh Editions
Algeria
Barzakh Editions is a remarkable independent publishing house that has
created a platform for a new generation of Algerian writers ¬and
opened a door for the flow of ideas between Algeria and the world.
Founded in 2000, in the aftermath of crisis and a context of cultural
isolation, economic crises and political violence, its name refers to
an intermediate zone where souls are in transit, where personal
realities are confronted and assessed against other realities. Many
Algerian writers had emigrated during the conflicts of the past
decades and the remaining writers had few possibilities. Connections
with neighbouring countries were limited. Most Algerian literature was
published in France, Lebanon or Egypt, expensive to import and thus
beyond the reach of the majority in Algeria. During this particularly
harsh period when it seemed that the country would become increasingly
isolated, Barzakh Editions succeeded in creating a space between an
authoritarian state and a powerful Islamist movement that seemed to
hold the country in a deadlock. Driven by a passion for books and a
conviction that freedom of thought and expression are essential for
development, co-founding editors Sofiane Hadjadj and Selma Hellal
began to make the work of local and exiled authors accessible and
affordable, to encourage creativity and experimentation, and to
provide publishing opportunities for local authors, both the
established and new voices.
Barzakh Editions has published more than 110 books of consistently
high quality in both content and presentation. Novels and poetry are
primary fields, alongside a range of genres and subjects such as
philosophy, urbanism, photography, theatre, social history, biography,
political essays and artists’ catalogues. Barzakh has succeeded in
breaking through restrictive frontiers that seemed to close up the
country and limit the space for cultural exchange in various ways.
Through its collaborations with French publishers, works by
Algeria-based authors are translated into French and Italian for wide
distribution. Barzakh publishes authors from francophone sub-Saharan
Africa and Arabic translations of French literature. It has developed
networks and exchanges with Arab, African and European countries, and
fosters the local audience through discussions, poetry readings and
art exhibitions.
The Principal Prince Claus Award honours Barzakh Editions for giving
concrete form to Algeria’s voices, for opening up a much needed space
for critical reflection on Algerian realities, for building a bridge
connecting different languages and cultures, and for creatively
breaking through the threatening cultural isolation of the country.
Ten 2010 Prince Claus Awards
Decolonizing Architecture institute (DAi)
Palestine
Decolonizing Architecture institute’s unique practice is dedicated to
the identification of architecture’s role as a central tool in spatial
power relations and in the making of conflict. It seeks to subvert and
propose new ways for the re-use of architecture’s dominating
potential. The work has significant implications for citizens,
strategists and policymakers in diverse regions and contexts around
the world, and is contributing to a new perspective on urban planning
and innovative methodologies for the processes of reclaiming spaces.
Founded in 2007, DAi is run by scholars, activists and architects
Sandi Hilal, Eyal Weizman and Alessandro Petti, as a residency
involving local and international practitioners. Looking forward to
the future evacuation of colonising forces from Palestinian
territories, Decolonizing Architecture offers practical possibilities
for their re-appropriation. Its materials document various methods of
dismantling and re-formulating Israeli settlements and military bases.
Drawings and projections show how spaces can be transformed, and
models also provide evidence in legal process. People can relate to
these visual representations and are empowered to imagine the
reconfiguration of their devastated environment. DAi’s plans reflect
both the place of refuge and site of origin, and offer visions for the
restoration of historical sites. Spreading their ideas through
exhibitions, lectures, videos and publications, DAi challenges
individuals and communities to think and plan for an unthreatening
built environment.
Decolonizing Architecture is honoured for introducing a
non-traditional approach to development in conflict and post-conflict
situations, for providing valuable speculation on the future realities
of disputed territories, for its critical challenge to outdated urban
planning theories based on a more peaceful world, and for highlighting
the role of architecture and visualisation in creating and altering
the frontiers of reality.
Maya Goded
Mexico
Photographer Maya Goded (Mexico City, 1967) creates subtle images of
hidden or shunned communities. Her first project, Tierra Negra (1994),
is a collection of moments from her three-year sojourn with Mexicans
of African descent, a group whose contribution to Mexican identity is
seldom acknowledged. Goded was then drawn to investigate female
sexuality, prostitution, tenderness and gender violence in a society
that defines women’s roles strictly and maintains notions of womanhood
wreathed in myths of purity, fragility and motherhood. Her five years
of intense interaction and work with prostitutes and pimps in Mexico
City are published in Plaza de Soledad (2006) and Good Girls (2007).
Her nine books to date include sensitive studies of the grief of
relatives of murdered and sexually abused women, the conditions of
traditional healers, and the endurance needed to attain socially
defined beauty.
Goded’s images are imbued with unusual intimacy and genuine presence
that spring from mutual trust established over a long period of time.
This bond is evident in the body language she captures, creating
empathy in the viewer. She explores people living in harsh situations
constructed around notions of power and control – both the strong,
whose refusal to conform threatens established norms, and the
vulnerable, whose lives are distorted by social prescription. Each
image is accompanied by the name of the person portrayed and a few
telling details that foster a sense of connection.
Maya Goded is honoured for her profound and intimate photography, for
challenging preconceptions and giving unique insight into little-known
realities, and for celebrating otherness and human commonalities that
transcend socially constructed barriers.
Jia Zhang-Ke
China
Filmmaker Jia Zhang-Ke (1970, Fenyang) breaks away from previous
generations’ historical dramas and political idealisations to convey
other kinds of realities. He depicts episodes in the life and
loyalties of a teenage pickpocket (Xiao Wu, 1997); working conditions
and workers facing unemployment, aging and broken state promises (24
City, 2008); the displaced and soon-to-be displaced figuring out how
to proceed as public buildings are demolished, houses submerge under
the rising waters of the Three Gorges Dam and human ties are stretched
to the limit (Still Life, 2006). The realities of home, belonging and
security for ordinary people in China unfold in parallel narratives
amid the demolition of social fabric and the erasure of memory and
connection in the name of economic progress.
Jia combines humanistic realism with striking aesthetics and rich
cultural texture. He uses local people and professional actors,
dialects, on-site sounds, improvisation and interpretive imagination
to express individual experiences as realistically as possible. A
master of the long shot that gradually fills with subtle gestures and
details, Jia makes time palpable and delights in ironies and
allusions: a spaceship lift-off, a tightrope-walker between
high-rises. He captures universal human experiences that exist
regardless of context, and shows Chinese ways of coping, maintaining
deeply held values, surviving with the quiet dignity, restraint and
resourcefulness of the ‘still living’.
Jia Zhang-Ke is honoured for the outstanding aesthetic and
intellectual qualities of his work, for his committed social
engagement in focusing on the realities of ordinary contemporary
lives, for his significant contribution to local cultural identity and
confidence, and for creatively transcending and altering the frontiers
of reality.
Gulnara Kasmalieva & Muratbek Djumaliev
Kyrgyzstan
Gulnara Kasmalieva (1960, Bishek) and Muratbek Djumaliev (1965,
Bishek) are cultural catalysts in the Central Asian region, which is
in many respects a Zone of Silence. Their practice embodies the
transition from a deeply rooted tradition of art making towards the
use of contemporary languages. Graduates of Kyrgyz State College of
Fine Art, they accessed international ideas when studying in Russia
during the period of perestroika. Returning to Bishek they
experimented with new technologies and developed documentary-style
videos and photography that provide unprecedented representations of
Kyrgyzstan’s passage to independence and the impact of Soviet-era
legacies on life and identity.
Their extensive practice includes the seminal video installation A New
Silk Road: Algorithm of Survival and Hope (2006), documenting
contemporary experiences along the historical trade route as it
encounters rapid globalisation. They weave different perspectives
together, picking up on popular visual culture, showing local
reinvention and adaptations, and bringing the new nation-states
together in an innovative exposé of intersecting frontiers of reality.
At ArtEast, the cultural centre they run in Bishek, Kasmalieva and
Djumaliev are active as curators and leaders with a mission to
stimulate the next generation. They provide gallery space for regional
and international exhibitions, courses in contemporary theory,
practice and art management, access to media equipment, workshops,
networking and collaborations, enabling young artists to get in touch
with artists, curators and critics in other contexts.
Gulnara Kasmalieva and Muratbek Djumaliev are awarded for their
groundbreaking art practices, for their significant contribution to
contemporary culture in Central Asia, for establishing a space of
freedom and opportunity for young artists, and for creating original
representations of the intersections of different realities.
Kwani Trust
Kenya
Kwani Trust is revolutionising creative literary production in Kenya
and across Anglophone Africa. Starting in 2003, it launched an
independent literary journal, Kwani? (Swahili for ‘So what?’), to
challenge the institutionalised academic control of authorship and
entrenched literary conventions of an older generation. Kwani’s
editors, Binyavanga Wainaina and Billy Kahura, actively encourage new
talent, original sensibilities and creative use of language. Poetry
has a strong presence, alongside humour and slang. The wide range of
stories, personal narratives and commentaries reflect day-to-day
realities, exploring topics such as urbanisation, relationships,
ethnicity, injustice and politics. The pool of contributors is
constantly expanding and includes writers from many African countries.
Positive response to the journal led to a variety of popular
activities: Poetry Open Mic, a monthly performance event; Sunday Salon
Nairobi, a prose reading series; writers’ forums, public debates,
workshops and competitions; and the annual Kwani? Literary Festival,
which features continental and global cultural figures.
Kwani Trust publishes short-story collections and books such as The
Life and Times of Richard Onyango (a Kenyan artist) and Kenya Burning
(a visual narrative of 2007 post-election violence). Recognising the
economic constraints of local readers, it also produces affordable
pocket-sized editions and distributes literature from other African
countries. It uses new technologies to reach wider audiences, has
built a global network and facilitates local participation in
international events.
Kwani Trust is honoured for establishing a dynamic platform for new
African voices and perspectives, for its progressive influence and
energetic dedication to developing a supportive environment for
literary expression, and for crossing social and cultural frontiers to
expose new facets of reality.
Dinh Q. Lê
Vietnam
Visual artist Dinh Q. Lê (1968, Ha-Tien) is the co-founder of two
transformative institutions that are opening up possibilities for
Vietnamese artists. The Vietnam Foundation for the Arts is a Los
Angeles-based centre that counteracts isolation through exchanges and
collaboration. And Sàn Art, the first independent not-for-profit art
space in Ho Chi Minh City, runs local and international exhibitions,
residencies, projects, a reading room, discussions, lectures and
networking opportunities.
Brought up in Vietnam during the American war, Dinh Q. Lê moved to
the USA aged 10. Surrounded by Hollywood and western media
interpretations of his homeland, he studied and began his art
practice. He devised an innovative technique based on Vietnamese craft
heritage, literally and metaphorically weaving images and fragments
into complex combinations of different traditions, histories and
modernities. These ‘surreal memory landscapes’ dramatically portray
the schizophrenic realities of exiles and migrants.
Returning to Vietnam, aged 25, he continues his explorations of
contradictory realities. The Farmers and the Helicopter (2006), a
documentary video on passionate local desire to recreate the iconic
destroyer of Vietnam’s traumatic past, contrasts with South China Sea
Pishkun (2009), a 3D animation of the mass crashing of helicopters
into the South China Sea during America’s panicked retreat from Saigon
– the Vietnamese view still widely unknown. Other works examine
genocide, consumerist glitz in disadvantaged places, and the promotion
of Vietnam as idyllic paradise for tourists.
The Prince Claus Award honours Dinh Q. Lê for his strong creative work
exploring different constructions of reality, for providing
inspiration and practical opportunities for young artists, and for
advancing free thought and contemporary visual expression in a context
of indifference and hostility.
Ana Maria Machado
Brazil
Ana Maria Machado (1941, Rio de Janeiro) creates compelling children’s
stories that deal with prejudices and human rights. She developed a
passion for storytelling during her traditional rural upbringing,
studied humanities, became a visual artist and curator, was arrested
and exiled during the dictatorship, completed a PhD in linguistics and
semiotics, lectured and worked as journalist. The author of more than
100 books, translated into 11 languages, she opened the first
children’s literature bookshop in Brazil.
Machado shares a way of looking at the world that is original, funny
and poetic. She has a mother’s faith in the child’s imagination, an
ear for natural patterns of everyday spoken language and a painter’s
eye for colour, composition and detail. Her experiments with narrative
structure, symbolic language and combinations of the real and the
fantastic are evidence of her consummate mastery of the writer’s
craft. Above all, Machado is able to express complex concepts with
skilful simplicity and subtle passion. Edged with excitement, tension
and humour, the intriguing scenarios she creates become personal
encounters with difficult subjects such as racism, gender
discrimination, poverty and identity. Machado interrogates Brazil’s
historical memory, bringing past experiences alive as part of everyday
life in a way that appeals to children. In From Another World (2005),
her characters and the readers confront the realities of slavery
through the unquiet ghost of a slave girl who seeks their help.
Presenting distilled wisdom in an unpretentious style, her stories
encompass understanding of difference, courage in the face of tyranny
and respect for others, and insist on delight and the joy of living.
Ana Maria Machado is awarded for her outstanding children’s
literature, for opening frontiers of reality for young people and
communicating essential human values to impressionable minds and
hearts, and for her significant contribution to recognition of the
importance of children’s literature in the formation of worldviews.
Mehrdad Oskouei
Iran
Independent filmmaker Mehrdad Oskouei (Tehran, 1969) penetrates
subaltern segments of Iranian society to give voice to unknown
perspectives, challenge preconceptions and offer unique readings of
people’s lives and experiences. Graduating from Tehran’s University of
Arts, he started in theatre and short fiction films before turning
towards realistic reporting. He has developed a hybrid cinematic
language that combines documentary, poetic and dramatic sensibilities,
enabling him to convey the multiple layers of reality.
Oskouei’s personal concern and commitment to the people he films
creates trust, which is the vital spark in his works. In The Other
Side of the Burka (2004), an investigation of high female suicide
rates in a patriarchal enclave in southern Iran, he achieves an
unprecedented degree of openness. The women tell their own stories,
describe their suffering and discuss their situation with honesty and
clarity in close-up face-to-face interviews; documentary facts ¬of the
women’s rooms, work, routines and the community rituals enacted to
deal with symptoms are interwoven with evocative metaphors and moments
of psychological pain, the glimpse of a shoulder, the corpse beneath
the burial cloth.
His 24 films offer in-depth encounters with orphans, widowers and
juvenile delinquents, and examine Iranian experience of broken homes,
rhinoplasty and urban youth cultures. Passionate about the role of
film in social development, Oskouei founded the Short Film Society and
runs workshops to stimulate young filmmakers.
Mehrdad Oskouei is honoured for his moving, informative and evocative
films, for his honest engagement with his subjects and his commitment
to accurately representing their concerns, and for working in
difficult contexts to break down prejudice and generate social
justice.
Yoani Sánchez
Cuba
Yoani Sánchez (1975, Havana) is a leading figure in the use of social
networking technologies to breach imposed frontiers. A graduate in
philology, she is now dedicated to computer sciences and their
capacity to alter perceptions and generate social change. She works as
a webmaster, columnist and editor for Desde Cuba, an online news
portal. Determined to promote freedom of information and to speak out
regardless of danger, in 2007, Yoani Sánchez set up a blog, Generation
Y.
Her regular posts offer punchy accounts of the day-to-day environment.
Avoiding direct criticism and global politics, her blog provides
subjective insights into the practical difficulties people face.
Emphasising the vital importance of material autonomy for any form of
active citizenship, her subjects include unaffordable food, shortage
of proteins and vegetables, the turgid proceedings of parliament and
the lack of meaningful reforms.
Sánchez operates in a context of strict control and censorship,
working clandestinely, under threat of arrest. Local access to
internet is limited and filters set up by the authorities slow and
block connection to Generation Y. Local supporters circulate her
writings in emails and USB memories, and volunteers translate her
Spanish reports into 22 languages. Generation Y’s growth has been
exponential. It is now one of the most-followed blogs in cyberspace,
and a compilation has been published as Cuba Libre.
Yoani Sánchez is awarded for raising global awareness of daily Cuban
realities through her blog, for her inspiring and courageous example
in giving a voice to the silenced, and for demonstrating the immense
impact internet communications technologies can have as tools for
social change and development.
Aung Zaw
Burma/Thailand
Aung Zaw (1968) is the founder and director of The Irrawaddy, the most
reliable source of information on realities in Burma. A committed
pro-democracy activist, he started in student politics, setting up an
underground network to organise resistance to authoritarian rule in
1987. He was arrested and released several times, tortured during
interrogation and, following the military coup in 1988, went into
exile in Thailand.
Recognising the urgency of keeping channels of communication open
between Burma and the world, Aung Zaw founded the Burma Information
Group to document human rights violations, lobby for democracy and
provide information to international newspapers and human rights
organisations. In 1993 he launched The Irrawaddy, the first
independent publication on Burma and the most significant resource for
up-to-date news on the situation. As editor and contributor he has
built up an extraordinary network of trusted sources on the ground,
inside one of the world’s most repressive states. In 2000, he set up
the website to increase access. Published in Burmese and English, The
Irrawaddy is officially banned and the website is largely blocked in a
context of almost total control and surveillance of media and
information. Dedicated to democracy for all, and to objective
journalism, Aung Zaw remains unaffiliated to any political group and
he has recently expanded coverage to related regional developments.
Aung Zaw is honoured for his active dedication to achieving democratic
government in Burma, for building such a valuable resource for
exposing realities that those in power want to hide, for maintaining
the flow of ideas and upholding freedom of information, and for his
inspiring role in transgressing the containment of violently enforced
political boundaries.
Me inspira la historía de fotografía amateur y cinematografía domestica mediante mi identidad asiatica a simular el capitalismo de cultura oeste de años 90 para recontextar el feminismo metaforicamente y tipologiamente a expresar el concreto de mujer con la relación naturalizad artificial de decolonización.
It's a cultural and artistic phenomenon, it's an amateur and domestic medium, it's an identity, it's a simulation of capitalism, it's a cult, it's from the 90s, it's a metamorphosis and it's a typology, it's a natural phenomenon of decolonization.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was the final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre. The FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .
The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).
Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.
The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.
The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.
During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.
The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .325
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.
The kit and its assembly
Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.
Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.
I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.
Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!
The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.
The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.
The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!
Painting and markings
I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.
Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).
I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.
The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.
The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.
The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.
Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.
finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!
So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was the final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre. The FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .
The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).
Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.
The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.
The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.
During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.
The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .325
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.
The kit and its assembly
Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.
Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.
I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.
Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!
The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.
The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.
The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!
Painting and markings
I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.
Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).
I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.
The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.
The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.
The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.
Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.
finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!
So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.
INDIGNEZ-VOUS! GET ANGRY! CRY OUT
by Stéphane Hessel
After 93 years, it is almost the final act. The end for me is not very far off any more. But it still leaves me a chance to be able to remind others of what acted as the basis of my political engagement. It was the years of resistance to the Nazi occupation -- and the program of social rights worked out 66 years ago by the National Council of the Resistance!
It is to Jean Moulin [murdered founder of the Council] that we owe, as part of this Council, the uniting of all elements of occupied France -- the movements, the parties, the labor unions -- to proclaim their membership in Fighting France, and we owe this to the only leader that it acknowledged, General de Gaulle. From London, where I had joined de Gaulle in March 1941, I learned that this Council had completed a program and adopted it on March 15th, 1944, that offered for liberated France a group of principles and values on which would rest the modern democracy of our country. [Note 1]
These principles and these values, we need today more than ever. It is up to us to see to it, all together, that our society becomes a society of which we are proud, not this society of immigrants without papers -- expulsions, suspicion regarding the immigrants. Not this society where they call into question social security and national retirement and health plans. Not this society where mass media are in the hands of the rich. These are things that we would have refused to give in to if we had been the true heirs of the National Council of the Resistance.
From 1945, after a dreadful drama [WWII], it was an ambitious resurrection of society to which the remaining contingent of the Council of the Resistance devoted itself. Let us remember them while creating national health and pensions plans such as the Resistance wished, as its program stipulated, "a full plan of French national health and social security, aimed at assuring all citizens
1
the means of existence whenever they are unable to obtain them by a job; a retirement allowing the old workers to finish their days with dignity."
The sources of energy, electricity, and gas, mines, the big banks, were nationalized. Now this was as the program recommended: "... the return to the nation of big monopolized means of production, fruits of common labor, sources of energy, wealth from the mines, from insurance companies and from big banks; the institution of a true economic and social democracy involving the ousting of the big economic and financial fiefdoms from the direction of the economy."
General interest must dominate over special interest. The just man believes that wealth created in the realm of labor should dominate over the power of money.
The Resistance proposed, "a rational organization of the economy assuring the subordination of special interests to general interest, and the emancipation of 'slaves' of the professional dictatorship that was instituted just as in the fascist states," which had used the interim [for two years after the war] government of the Republic as an agent.
A true democracy needs an independent press, and the Resistance acknowledged it, demanded it, by defending "the freedom of the press, its honor, and its independence from the State, the power of money and foreign influence." This is what relieved restrictions on the press from 1944 on. And press freedom is definitely what is in danger today.
The Resistance called for a "real possibility for all French children to benefit from the most advanced education," without discrimination. Reforms offered in 2008 go contrary to this plan. Young teachers, whose actions I support, went so far as refusing to apply them, and they saw their salaries cut by way of punishment. They were indignant, "disobeyed," judging these reforms too far from the ideal of the democratic school, too much in the service of a society of commerce and not developing the inventive and critical mind enough.
2
All the foundations of the social conquests of the Resistance are threatened today. [Note 2]
The motive of the Resistance: indignation (Indignez-vous!)
Some dare to say to us that the State cannot afford the expenses of these measures for citizens any more. But how can there be today a lack of money to support and extend these conquests while the production of wealth has been considerably augmented since the Liberation period when Europe was in ruins? On the contrary, the problem is the power of money, so much opposed by the Resistance, and of the big, boldfaced, selfish man, with his own servants in the highest spheres of the State.
Banks, since privatized again, have proved to be concerned foremost for their dividends and for the very high salaries of their leaders, not the general interest. The disparity between the poorest and the richest has never been so great, and amassing money, competition, so encouraged.
The basic motive of the Resistance was indignation!
We, the veterans of the resistance movements and combat forces of Free France, we call on the young generation to live by, to transmit, the legacy of the Resistance and its ideals. We say to them: Take our place, "Indignez-vous!" [Get angry! or Cry out!].
The political, economic, intellectual leaders, and the whole society do not have to give in, nor allow oppression by an actual international dictatorship of the financial markets, which threatens peace and democracy.
I wish for you all, each of you, to have your own motive for indignation. It is precious. When something outrages you as I was outraged by Nazism, then people become militant, strong, and engaged. They join this current of history, and the great current of history must continue thanks to each individual. And this current goes towards more justice, more freedom, but not this unbridled freedom of the fox in the henhouse. The rights contained in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 are just that, universal.
3
If you meet somebody who does not benefit from it, feel sorry for them but help them to win their rights.
Two visions of history
When I try to understand what caused fascism, what made it so we were overcome by Hitler and the Vichy [French government that collaborated with Hitler], I tell myself that the propertied, with their selfishness, were terrifically afraid of Bolshevik revolution. They were allowed to lead with their fear.
But if, today as then, an active minority stands up, it will be enough; we shall be the leavening that makes the bread rise. Certainly, the experience of a very old person like me, born in 1917, is different from the experience of the today's young persons. I often ask professors for the opportunity to interact with their students, and I say to them: You don't have the same obvious reasons to engage you. For us, to resist was not to accept German occupation, defeat. It was comparatively simple. Simple as what followed, decolonization. Then the war in Algeria.
It was necessary that Algeria become independent, it was obvious. As for Stalin, we all applauded the victory of the Red Army against the Nazis in 1943. But already we had known about the big Stalinist trials of 1935, and even if it was necessary to keep an ear open towards communism to compensate against American capitalism, the necessity to oppose this unbearable form of totalitarianism had established itself as an obviousness. My long life presented a succession of reasons to outrage me.
These reasons were born less from an emotion than a deliberate commitment. As a young student at normal school [teachers college] I was very influenced by Sartre, a fellow student. His "Nausea" [a novel], "The Wall," [play], and "The Being and Nothingness" [essay] were very important in the training of my thought. Sartre taught us, "You are responsible as individuals." It was a libertarian message. The responsibility of a person can not be assigned by a power or an authority. On the contrary, it is necessary to get involved in the name of one's responsibility as a human being.
4
When I entered the French Ecole Normale Superieure, Ulm Street, in Paris in 1939, I entered it as a fervent adherent of the philosopher Hegel, and I adhered to the thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. His teaching explored concrete experience, that of the body and of its relations with the senses, one big singular sense faced with a plurality of senses. But my natural optimism, which wants all that is desirable to be possible, carried me rather towards Hegel. Hegelism interprets the long history of humanity as having a meaning: It is the freedom of man progressing step by step. History is made of successive shocks, and the taking into account of challenges. The history of societies thus advances; and in the end, man having attained his full freedom, we have the democratic state in its ideal form.
There is certainly another understanding of history. It says progress is made by "freedom" of competition, striving for "always more"; it can be as if living in a devastating hurricane. That's what it represented to a friend of my father, the man who shared with him an effort to translate into German "The Search for Time Lost" [novel] by Marcel Proust.
That was the German philosopher Walter Benjamin. He had drawn a pessimistic view from a painting by the Swiss painter Paul Klee, "Angelus Novus," where the face of the angel opens arms as if to contain and push back a tempest, which he identifies with progress. For Benjamin, who would commit suicide in September 1940 to escape Nazism, the sense of history is the overpowering progression of disaster upon disaster.
Indifference: the worst of attitudes
It is true the reasons to be indignant can seem today less clearly related or the world too complex. Who's doing the ordering, who decides? It is not always easy to differentiate between all the currents that govern us. We are not any more dealing with a small elite whose joint activities can be clearly seen. It is a vast world, of which we have a feeling of interdependence. We
5
live in an interconnectivity as never before. But in this world there still are intolerable things. To see them, it is well and necessary to look, to search. I say to the young people, Search little, and that is what you are going to find. The worst of attitudes is indifference, to say "I can do nothing there, I'l just manage to get by." By including yourself in that, you lose one of the essential elements that makes the human being: the faculty of indignation and the commitment that is a consequence of it.
They [young people] can already identify two big new challenges:
1. The huge gap which exists between the very poor and the very rich and that does not cease increasing. It is an innovation of the 20th and 21st centuries. The very poor in the today's world earn barely two dollars a day. The new generation cannot let this gap become even greater. The official reports alone should provoke a commitment.
2. Human rights and state of the planet: I had the chance after the Liberation to join in the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations organization, on December 10th, 1948, in Paris at the palace of Chaillot. It was as principal private secretary of Henry Laugier, the adjunct general-secretary of the UN, and as and secretary of the Commission on Human Rights that I with others was led to participate in the writing of this statement. I wouldn't know how to forget the role in its elaboration of René Cassin, who was national commissioner of justice and education in the government of Free France in London in 1941 and won the Nobel peace prize in 1968, nor that of Pierre Mendès-France in the Economic and Social Council, to whom the text drafts we worked out were submitted before being considered by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the General Assembly. It was ratified by the 54 member states in session of the United Nations, and I certified it as secretary.
It is to René Cassin that we owe the term "universal rights" instead of
6
"international rights" as offered by our American and British friends. This [universal versus international] was key because, at the end of the Second World War, what was at stake was to become emancipated from the threats of totalitarianism that had weighed on humanity.
To become emancipated, it was necessary to acquire from the member states of the UN a promise to respect these universal rights. It was a way to outmaneuver the argument of "full sovereignty," which a nation can emphasize while it devotes itself to crimes against humanity on its own soil. Such was the case of Hitler, who felt himself supreme and authorized to carry out a genocide. This universal statement owed much to universal revulsion towards Nazism, fascism, and totalitarianism -- and owes a lot, in our minds, to the spirit of the Resistance.
I had a feeling that it was necessary to move quickly so as not to be dupes of the hypocrisy that there was in the UN membership, some whom claimed these values already won but had no intention at all to promote them faithfully -- claimed that we were trying to impose values on them. [Note 3]
I can not resist the desire to quote Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): "Everyone has the right to a nationality." Article 22 says, "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." And if this statement has a declarative scope, and not statutory, the Declaration nevertheless has played a powerful role since 1948. It saw colonized people take it up in their fight for independence; it sowed minds in a battle for freedom.
I note with pleasure that in the course of last decades there has been an increase in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements
such as ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions);
7
also FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) and Amnesty International, which are active and competitive. It is obvious that to be effective today it is necessary to act in a network, to use all modern means of communication.
To the young people, I say: Look around you, you will find topics that justify your indignation — facts about treatment of immigrants, of "illegal" immigrants, of the Roma [aka Gypsies]. You will find concrete situations that lead you to strong citizen action. Search and you shall find!
My indignation regarding Palestine outrages by Israel [Indignez-vous!]
Today, my main indignation concerns Palestine, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank of Jordan. This conflict is outrageous. It is absolutely essential to read the report by Richard Goldstone, of September 2009, on Gaza, in which this South African, Jewish judge, who claims even to be a Zionist, accuses the Israeli army of having committed "acts comparable to war crimes and perhaps, in certain circumstances, crimes against humanity" during its "Operation Cast Lead," which lasted three weeks.
I went back to Gaza in 2009 myself, when I was able to enter with my wife thanks to our diplomatic passports, to study first-hand what this report said. People who accompanied us were not authorized to enter the Gaza Strip. There and in the West Bank of Jordan. We also visited the Palestinian refugee camps set up from 1948 by the United Nations agency UNRWA, where more than three million Palestinians expelled off their lands by Israel wait even yet for a more and more problematical return.
As for Gaza, it is a roofless prison for one and a half million Palestinians. A prison where people get organized just to survive. Despite material destruction such as that of the Red Crescent hospital by Operation Cast Lead, it is the behavior of the Gazans, their patriotism, their love of the sea and beaches, their constant preoccupation for the welfare of their children,
8
who are innumerable and cheerful, that haunt our memory. We were impressed by how ingeniously they face up to all the scarcities that are imposed on them. We saw them making bricks, for lack of cement, to rebuild the thousands of houses destroyed by tanks. They confirmed to us that there had been 1400 deaths — including women, children, and oldsters in the Palestinian camp — during this Operation Cast Lead led by the Israeli army, compared to only 50 injured men on the Israeli side. I share conclusions of the South African judge. That Jews can, themselves, perpetrate war crimes is unbearable. Alas, history does not give enough examples of people who draw lessons from their own history.
[The author, Stéphane Hessel, had a Jewish father.]
Terrorism, or exasperation?
I know that Hamas [party of Palestine freedom fighters], which had won the last legislative elections, could not help it that rockets were launched on Israeli cities in response to the situation of isolation and blockade in which Gazans exist. I think, naturally, that terrorism is unacceptable; but it is necessary to acknowledge (from experience in France) that when people are occupied by forces immensely superior to their own, popular reaction cannot be altogether bloodless.
Does it serve Hamas to send rockets onto the town of Sdérot [Israeli town across the border from Gaza]?
The answer is no. This does not serve their purpose, but they can explain this gesture by the exasperation of Gazans. In the notion of exasperation, it is necessary to understand violence as the regrettable conclusion of situations not acceptable to those who are subjected them.
Thus, they can tell themselves, terrorism is a form of exasperation. And that this "terrorism" is a misnomer. One should not have to resort to this exasperation, but it is necessary to have hope. Exasperation is a denial of hope. It is comprehensible, I would say almost natural, but it still is not acceptable. Because it does not allow one to acquire results that hope can possibly, eventually produce.
9
Nonviolence: the way we must learn to follow
I am persuaded that the future belongs to nonviolence, to reconciliation of different cultures. It is by this way that humanity will have to enter its next stage. But on this I agree with Sartre: We cannot excuse the terrorists who throw bombs, but we can understand them. Sartre wrote in 1947: "I recognize that violence in whatever form it may manifest itself is a setback. But it is an inevitable setback because we are in a world of violence. And if it is true that recourse to violence risks perpetuating it, it is also true it is the sure means to make it stop." [Note 4]
To that I would add that nonviolence is a surer means of making violence stop. One can not condone the terrorism, using Sartre or in the name of this principle, during the war of Algeria, nor during the Munich Games of 1972 the murder attempt made against Israeli athletes. Terrorism is not productive, and Sartre himself would end up wondering at the end of his life about the sense of violence and doubt its reason for being.
However, to proclaim "violence is not effective" is more important than to know whether one must condemn or not those who devote themselves to it. Terrorism is not effective. In the notion of effectiveness, a bloodless hope is needed. If there is a violent hope, it is in the poem of William Apollinaire "that hope is violent," and not in policy.
Sartre, in March 1980, within three weeks of his death, declared: "It is necessary to try to explain why the world of today, which is horrible, is only an instant in a long historical development, that hope always has been one of the dominant forces in revolutions and insurrections, and how I still feel hope as my conception of the future." [Note 5]
It is necessary to understand that violence turns its back on hope. It is necessary to prefer to it hope, hope over violence. Nonviolence is the way that we must learn to follow. So must the oppressors.
10
It is necessary to arrive at negotiations to remove oppression; it is what will allow you to have no more terrorist violence. That's why you should not let too much hate pile up.
The message of Mandela and Martin Luther King finds all its pertinence in the world that overcame the confrontation of ideologies [e.g., Nazism] and conquered totalitarianism [e.g.,Hitler]. It is also a message of hope in the capacity of modern societies to overcome conflicts by a mutual understanding and a vigilant patience. To reach that point is necessarily based on rights, against which violation, whomever is the author, must cause our indignation. There is to be no compromise on these rights.
10
For a peaceful insurrection
I noted, and I am not the only one, the reaction of the Israeli government when confronted by the way that every Friday the citizens of Bil'in, Palestine, advance -- without throwing stones or using force -- up to the separation wall against which they protest. Israeli authorities characterized this step as "bloodless terrorism." That's a good one .... It is necessary to be Israeli to qualify nonviolence as terrorist. It is especially necessary to be embarrassed [as Israelis are] by the effectiveness of nonviolence, which is found to provoke support, understanding -- the support of all those in the world who are the adversaries of oppression.
Crises today
The thought process advanced by the West drew the world into a crisis from which it must emerge by a radical break: "always more," in the financial domain but also in the fields of science and technology . It's high time that concerns about ethics, justice, and LASTING EQUILIBRIUM (economic and environmental) prevail. Because the most serious risks threaten us. They can put an end to the human adventure on the planet, which they can make unfit for habitation by man.
11
But it remains true that important progress was made after 1948 [year of UN founding and Declaration of Human Rights]: decolonization, the end of apartheid, destruction of the Soviet empire, fall of the Berlin Wall. On the other hand, the first ten years of the 21st century were a period of degeneration. This degeneration is explained partly by the American presidency of George Bush, the September 11th events, and disastrous consequences that involved the United States, such as the military intervention in Iraq.
We had this economic crisis, but we still did not initiate a new policy of development. Also, the summit of Copenhagen against climatic warming did not bring about a true policy for the preservation of the planet.
We are on a threshold between the terror of the first decade and the possibilities of following decades. But it is necessary to hope, it is always necessary to hope. The previous decade, that of 1990s, had been a time of great progress. The United Nations had enough wisdom to call conferences such as those of Rio on environment, in 1992, and that of Beijing on women, in 1995. In September 2000, on the initiative of the general secretary of United Nations, Kofi Annan, the 191 member countries adopted a statement on the "eight objectives of the millennium for development," by which they notably promised to reduce poverty in the world by half before 2015.
My big regret is that neither Obama nor the European Union has yet committed themselves to what should be the provision for a useful forum bearing on the fundamental values.
Conclusion
How to conclude this call to be indignant? By saying still what, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the program of the National Council of the Resistance, we said on March 8th, 2004 -- we veterans of the resistance movements and combat forces of Free France (1940-1945) -- that certainly "Nazism was conquered, thanks to the sacrifice of our brothers and sisters of the Resistance and United Nations
12
against fascist barbarism. But this threat did not completely disappear, and our anger against injustice is ever intact." [Note 6] Also, let us always be called in "a truly peaceful insurrection against means of mass communication that offer as a vista for our youth only the consumption of mass trivia, contempt of the weakest and the culture, a generalized amnesia, and the hard competition of all against all."
To those who will make the 21st century, we say with our affection:
TO CREATE IS TO RESIST; TO RESIST IS TO CREATE.
13
Amb. Vicki Huddleston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, talks in Bliss Hall Feb. 1 during the African Symposium at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa.
Photo by Megan Clugh
The U.S. Army War College dedicated two days to bring together government, civilian and military experts to talk over the issues, challenges and potential success stories for the African continent during a regional symposium Feb. 1-2.
"This symposium was designed to shape and inform the discussion of the complex issues facing the African continent," said Col. Tom Sheperd, U.S. Army War College director of African Studies. "The goal is to provide an exposure to some of the underlying key strategic factors that play a role in shaping the way the United States achieves its national interests in a regional context."
Guest lecturers included Margaret Culbert, Dr. Jeff Herbst, Col. Tom Galvin, Dr. William Reno, Joshua Eisenman, Amb. Vicki Huddleston and retired Amb. Lou Nigro. Each brought their unique perspectives to the diverse continent of Africa.
"This region presents a nuanced set of challenges that will help shape the future of stability and security not only for Africa, but the entire world," Sheperd told the college’s student body. "You will find these same themes continuing throughout the rest of the year as you continue to wrestle with the 'wicked problems' of national security.
"The game has changed. When these students leave they will be encountering these complex issues and challenges," Sheperd said.
This was especially true for USAWC student Lt. Col. Kristin Baker, who will assume a position in U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) after graduation.
"This was a great opportunity to enhance my knowledge of the issues and challenges facing the region," she said. "Each of the speakers brought their own unique perspective to the topics discussed which creates a great discussion."
"The symposium really challenges you to think about the challenges that the African continent faces, and what the implications may be for the rest of the world," said student Marine Corps Col. Terry Trenchard.
"What really makes it valuable for a nation like Georgia, that is so far away, is that it helps to show how truly universal these issues are," said Georgian Fellow Col. Bondo Maisuradze. "A nation's problems don't always stay within their own borders. It can spread to other areas, so we need to be aware of that and be prepared to help."
The symposium serves as a capstone event after the completion of many of the USAWC core courses, and challenges students to apply their skills.
"This is an opportunity for the students to sit, listen and apply the critical thinking skills we've been emphasizing all year in relation to strategy, policy and the operational environment," Sheperd said. "Then we hope they use these skills to get to the crux of how these issues shape and affect the U.S. during the seminar discussion sessions."
Given the current context of civil unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, Sheperd said that one of the symposium objectives was to help explore how one incident in Tunisia, no matter how small at first glance — such as someone setting himself alight — may have far-reaching effects.
"It's easy sometimes to see how a large incident has a big impact on the strategic environment," he said. "But it's sometimes more important to see that seemingly small things, under the right circumstances, can have a huge effect on the long-term strategic environment. We hope the students are able to take a longer view toward complex issues and regions."
Culbert, a senior defense ontelligence analyst for Africa at the Defense Intelligence Agency, focused her remarks on how factors such as demographics, population growth, urban growth and climate change may shape the region's future.
"It's important that schools like the Army War College are taking time to focus on Africa," she said. "If you are going to be deployed to Africa, then you really need to have a grasp of the multiple concerns on the continent, no matter whether you are there for military, human rights or other reasons."
She also said that the complex nature of the problems necessitate the use of all of the elements of national power.
"When you are building these professional military institutions, they have to be built simultaneously with political, social, judicial and penal institutions," she said. "You have to build an environment in which democracy can grow."
Herbst, president of Colgate University, spoke of the effect that decolonization has had for Africa and how it at times carries an incorrect label as an unstable region.
"If you look at the changes in boundaries in Europe and the former Soviet Union in the last 50 years, there has actually been more change there than in Africa," he said. "What really hurt the region was the destruction of the existing military structure when the continent was decolonized, which has helped to create the instability we see now."
Herbst also discussed the potential challenges that the recent South Sudan referendum for independence and the still unstable Somalia status quo may pose for the region.
Eisenman, a senior fellow for China studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, brought a unique perspective to the region when he focused his remarks on Chinese interest in Africa and what that could mean for the world.
"There is a dearth of information about why China is interested in Africa, and what they are trying to achieve there," he said. "Resources are a key, but there are diplomatic and trade advantages for them as well. How this situation unfolds could say a lot for the future of the continent."
Galvin, chief of the AFRICOM Commander's Action Group, provided students with a wealth of information about AFRICOM and what security challenges face the region.
"It's important to remember that African problems are global security challenges," he said.
Galvin said that AFRICOM activities such as supporting partner counterterrorism efforts, promoting interoperability and balancing ground, maritime and air capabilities, have led to success. He said that lessons about the importance of partnership, executing a resourced comprehensive approach and communications strategically have already been learned and applied to future operations.
Huddleston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, spoke about the need for building African capacity.
"We're there to reinforce and enable the African states — militarily, through training, as well as through civilian assistance like health and education," she said. "As President Obama says: Africa for Africans.
"African military under civilian control allows them to protect their citizens and defend their borders," she said. "If it's well done, as with Egypt and Tunisia, the military is the friend of the people, the constitution and the state." In large part, that's "because of experiences with the U.S. military, like the U.S. Army War College."
Nigro, a former ambassador to Chad and DNSS faculty member, spoke about the challenges facing AFRICOM.
"AFRICOM is still a new organization, evolving," he said. "We really need to ensure the integration of State, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development and other agencies, like Justice and Agriculture, across the spectrum of the U.S. government to achieve our national goals. Resources are never enough if we don't integrate and synchronize and harmonize efforts."
Nigro also touched on the importance of the establishment of the nations’ militaries.
"African militaries will develop as their societies develop," he said. "A state acquires legitimacy when the military and law-enforcement elements of the state are [at an equal pace] with the development of the state itself, and when the society is willing to hand off control of their lives to a state they consider legitimate."
In seminar later, students discussed the difficulty of finding agreement among nations about agreeing on the definition of security and its sources. The dialogue considered the challenges of achieving the regime's security, territorial security and human security.
To learn more about U.S. Army Africa visit our official website at www.usaraf.army.mil
Official Twitter Feed: www.twitter.com/usarmyafrica
Official Vimeo video channel: www.vimeo.com/usarmyafrica
Margaret Culbert, a senior defense intelligence analyst for Africa at the Defense Intelligence Agency, talks with Air Force Lt. Col. Chuck Bowes during a seminar discussion at the African Symposium Feb. 1 at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa.
Photo by Megan Clugh
The U.S. Army War College dedicated two days to bring together government, civilian and military experts to talk over the issues, challenges and potential success stories for the African continent during a regional symposium Feb. 1-2.
"This symposium was designed to shape and inform the discussion of the complex issues facing the African continent," said Col. Tom Sheperd, U.S. Army War College director of African Studies. "The goal is to provide an exposure to some of the underlying key strategic factors that play a role in shaping the way the United States achieves its national interests in a regional context."
Guest lecturers included Margaret Culbert, Dr. Jeff Herbst, Col. Tom Galvin, Dr. William Reno, Joshua Eisenman, Amb. Vicki Huddleston and retired Amb. Lou Nigro. Each brought their unique perspectives to the diverse continent of Africa.
"This region presents a nuanced set of challenges that will help shape the future of stability and security not only for Africa, but the entire world," Sheperd told the college’s student body. "You will find these same themes continuing throughout the rest of the year as you continue to wrestle with the 'wicked problems' of national security.
"The game has changed. When these students leave they will be encountering these complex issues and challenges," Sheperd said.
This was especially true for USAWC student Lt. Col. Kristin Baker, who will assume a position in U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) after graduation.
"This was a great opportunity to enhance my knowledge of the issues and challenges facing the region," she said. "Each of the speakers brought their own unique perspective to the topics discussed which creates a great discussion."
"The symposium really challenges you to think about the challenges that the African continent faces, and what the implications may be for the rest of the world," said student Marine Corps Col. Terry Trenchard.
"What really makes it valuable for a nation like Georgia, that is so far away, is that it helps to show how truly universal these issues are," said Georgian Fellow Col. Bondo Maisuradze. "A nation's problems don't always stay within their own borders. It can spread to other areas, so we need to be aware of that and be prepared to help."
The symposium serves as a capstone event after the completion of many of the USAWC core courses, and challenges students to apply their skills.
"This is an opportunity for the students to sit, listen and apply the critical thinking skills we've been emphasizing all year in relation to strategy, policy and the operational environment," Sheperd said. "Then we hope they use these skills to get to the crux of how these issues shape and affect the U.S. during the seminar discussion sessions."
Given the current context of civil unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, Sheperd said that one of the symposium objectives was to help explore how one incident in Tunisia, no matter how small at first glance — such as someone setting himself alight — may have far-reaching effects.
"It's easy sometimes to see how a large incident has a big impact on the strategic environment," he said. "But it's sometimes more important to see that seemingly small things, under the right circumstances, can have a huge effect on the long-term strategic environment. We hope the students are able to take a longer view toward complex issues and regions."
Culbert, a senior defense ontelligence analyst for Africa at the Defense Intelligence Agency, focused her remarks on how factors such as demographics, population growth, urban growth and climate change may shape the region's future.
"It's important that schools like the Army War College are taking time to focus on Africa," she said. "If you are going to be deployed to Africa, then you really need to have a grasp of the multiple concerns on the continent, no matter whether you are there for military, human rights or other reasons."
She also said that the complex nature of the problems necessitate the use of all of the elements of national power.
"When you are building these professional military institutions, they have to be built simultaneously with political, social, judicial and penal institutions," she said. "You have to build an environment in which democracy can grow."
Herbst, president of Colgate University, spoke of the effect that decolonization has had for Africa and how it at times carries an incorrect label as an unstable region.
"If you look at the changes in boundaries in Europe and the former Soviet Union in the last 50 years, there has actually been more change there than in Africa," he said. "What really hurt the region was the destruction of the existing military structure when the continent was decolonized, which has helped to create the instability we see now."
Herbst also discussed the potential challenges that the recent South Sudan referendum for independence and the still unstable Somalia status quo may pose for the region.
Eisenman, a senior fellow for China studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, brought a unique perspective to the region when he focused his remarks on Chinese interest in Africa and what that could mean for the world.
"There is a dearth of information about why China is interested in Africa, and what they are trying to achieve there," he said. "Resources are a key, but there are diplomatic and trade advantages for them as well. How this situation unfolds could say a lot for the future of the continent."
Galvin, chief of the AFRICOM Commander's Action Group, provided students with a wealth of information about AFRICOM and what security challenges face the region.
"It's important to remember that African problems are global security challenges," he said.
Galvin said that AFRICOM activities such as supporting partner counterterrorism efforts, promoting interoperability and balancing ground, maritime and air capabilities, have led to success. He said that lessons about the importance of partnership, executing a resourced comprehensive approach and communications strategically have already been learned and applied to future operations.
Huddleston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, spoke about the need for building African capacity.
"We're there to reinforce and enable the African states — militarily, through training, as well as through civilian assistance like health and education," she said. "As President Obama says: Africa for Africans.
"African military under civilian control allows them to protect their citizens and defend their borders," she said. "If it's well done, as with Egypt and Tunisia, the military is the friend of the people, the constitution and the state." In large part, that's "because of experiences with the U.S. military, like the U.S. Army War College."
Nigro, a former ambassador to Chad and DNSS faculty member, spoke about the challenges facing AFRICOM.
"AFRICOM is still a new organization, evolving," he said. "We really need to ensure the integration of State, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development and other agencies, like Justice and Agriculture, across the spectrum of the U.S. government to achieve our national goals. Resources are never enough if we don't integrate and synchronize and harmonize efforts."
Nigro also touched on the importance of the establishment of the nations’ militaries.
"African militaries will develop as their societies develop," he said. "A state acquires legitimacy when the military and law-enforcement elements of the state are [at an equal pace] with the development of the state itself, and when the society is willing to hand off control of their lives to a state they consider legitimate."
In seminar later, students discussed the difficulty of finding agreement among nations about agreeing on the definition of security and its sources. The dialogue considered the challenges of achieving the regime's security, territorial security and human security.
To learn more about U.S. Army Africa visit our official website at www.usaraf.army.mil
Official Twitter Feed: www.twitter.com/usarmyafrica
Official Vimeo video channel: www.vimeo.com/usarmyafrica
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was the final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre. The FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .
The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).
Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.
The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.
The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.
During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.
The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .325
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.
The kit and its assembly
Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.
Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.
I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.
Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!
The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.
The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.
The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!
Painting and markings
I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.
Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).
I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.
The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.
The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.
The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.
Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.
finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!
So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was the final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre. The FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .
The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).
Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.
The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.
The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.
During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.
The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .325
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.
The kit and its assembly
Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.
Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.
I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.
Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!
The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.
The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.
The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!
Painting and markings
I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.
Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).
I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.
The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.
The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.
The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.
Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.
finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!
So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber, originally developed for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. It was the final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre. The FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but featured an entirely new wing design. And it was, as a kind of final embodiment with the FJ-4B, a very different aircraft from the F-86 .
The first FJ-4 flew on 28 October 1954 and delivery began in February 1955. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version, of which the Netherlands received 16 aircraft under the designation FJ-4B from the USA in the course of NATO support. Even though the main roles of the MLD were maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue, the FJ-4B was a dedicated fighter-bomber, and these aircraft were to be used with the Dutch Navy’s Colossus-Class carrier HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).
Compared to the lighter FJ-4 interceptor, the FJ-4B had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations, a stronger landing gear and additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage. The latter made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings, and were also useful for dive attacks. Compared to the FJ-4, external load was doubled, and the US FJ-4Bs were capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station, a feature the MLD Furies lacked. The MLD aircraft were still equipped with the corresponding LABS or Low-Altitude Bombing System for accurate delivery of ordnance.
The Dutch Furies were primarily intended for anti-ship missions (toting up to five of the newly developed ASM-N-7 missiles - renamed in AGM-12B Bullpup after 1962 - plus a guidance pod) and CAS duties against coastal targets, as well as for precision strikes. In a secondary role, the FJ-4B could carry Sidewinder AAMs for interception purposes.
The MLD's FJ-4B became operational in 1956, just in time to enhance the firepower of the Karel Doorman, which just had its 24 WW-II era propeller driven Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighter/anti-ship aircraft backed up with 14 TBF Avenger ASW/torpedo bombers and 10 Hawker Sea Hawk fighters (the MLD owned 22 of these) for an ASW/Strike profile. The Furies joined the carrier in late 1957 and replaced the piston-engined attack aircraft.
In 1960, during the Dutch decolonization and planned independence of Western New Guinea, a territory which was also claimed by Indonesia, the Karel Doorman set sail along with two destroyers and a modified oil tanker to 'show the flag'. In order to avoid possible problems with Indonesia's ally Egypt at the Suez Canal, the carrier instead sailed around the horn of Africa. She arrived in Fremantle, Australia, where the local seamen's union struck in sympathy with Indonesia; the crew used the propeller thrust of aircraft chained down on deck to nudge the carrier into dock without tugs! In addition to her air wing, she was ferrying twelve Hawker Hunter fighters to bolster the local Dutch defense forces, which the Karel Doorman delivered when she arrived at Hollandia, New Guinea.
During the 1960 crisis, Indonesia prepared for a military action named Operation Trikora (in the Indonesian language, "Tri Komando Rakyat" means "The Three Commands of the People"). In addition to planning for an invasion, the TNI-AU (Indonesian Air Forces) hoped to sink the Karel Doorman with Soviet-supplied Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger naval bombers using AS-1 Kennel/KS-1 Kometa anti-ship missiles. This bomber-launched missile strike mission was cancelled on short notice, though, because of the implementation of the cease-fire between Indonesia and the Netherlands. This led to a Dutch withdrawal and temporary UN peacekeeping administration, followed by occupation and annexation through Indonesia. While the Dutch aircraft served actively during this conflict, flying patrols and demonstrating presence, visibly armed and in alert condition, no 'hot' sortie or casualty occured, even though one aircraft, 10-18, was lost in a start accident. The pilot ejected safely.
The MLD FJ-4Bs only served on the carrier until its overhaul in 1964, after which the carrier-borne attack role was eliminated and all aircraft were transferred to land bases (Valkenburg) or in reserve storage. The Seahawks were retired from service by the end of the 1960s after the sale of the Karel Doorman to Argentina, and the FJ-4Bs were returned to the United States, where they were re-integrated into the USMC until the end of the 1960ies, when all FJ-4 aircraft were phased out.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (6,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,200 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m)
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .325
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
6× pylons under the wings for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) external ordnance, including up to 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, bombs and guided/unguided ASM, e .g. ASM-N-7 (AGM-12B Bullpup) missiles.
The kit and its assembly
Originally, this model project was inspired by a (whiffy) Dutch F3H Demon profile, designed by fellow user Darth Panda at whatifmodelers.com. I found the idea of a foreign/NATO user of one of these early carrier-borne jet fighters very inspiring – not only because of the strange design of many of these aircraft, but also since the USN and USMC had been the only real world users of many of these types.
Initially, I planned to convert a F3H accordingly. But with limited storage/display space at home I decided to apply the MLD idea to another smaller, but maybe even more exotic, type: the North American FJ-4B Fury, which was in 1962 recoded into AF-1E.
I like the beefy Sabre cousin very much. It’s one of those aircraft that received little attention, even from model kit manufacturers. In fact, in 1:72 scale there are only vintage vacu kits or the very basic Emhar kit available. Th Emhar kit, which I used here and which is a kind donation of a fellow modeler (Thanks a lot, André!), a rather rough thing with raised panel lines and much room for improvements. As a side note, there's also a FJ-4B from Revell, but it's just a 1996 re-issue with no improvements, whatsoever.
Another facet of the model: When I did legwork concerning a possible background story, I was surprised to find out that the Netherlands actually operated aircraft carriers in the 1950s, including carrier-borne, fixed-wing aircraft, even jets in the form of Hawker Sea Hawks. The real life FJ-4Bs service introduction, the naissance of NATO and the Indonesian conflict as well as the corresponding intervention of the Karel Doorman carrier all fell into a very plausible time frame – and so there’s a very good and plausible story why the MLD could actually have used the Fury fighter bomber!
The Emhar kit was not modified structurally, but saw some changes in detail. These include a scratch-built cockpit with side walls, side consoles and a new ejection seat, plus a Matchbox pilot figure, a new front wheel (from a Kangnam Yak-38, I believe), plus a lot of added blade aerials and a finer pitot.
The flaps were lowered, for a more lively look- Another new feature is the opened air intake, which features a central splitter - in fact a vertically placed piece of a Vicker Wellesley bomb container from Matchbox. At the rear end, the exhaust pipe was opened and lengthened internally.
The six weapon hardpoints were taken from the original kit, but I did not use the four Sidewinder AAMs and the rather bulky drop tanks. So, all ordnance is new: the Bullpups come from the Hasegawa air-to-ground missile set, the drop tanks are leftover pieces from a Hobby Boss F-86. They are much more 'delicate', and make the Fury look less stout and cumbersome. The guidance pod for the Bullpups (a typical FJ-4B feature with these weapons) is a WWII drop tank, shaped with the help of benchmark pictures. Certainly not perfect, but, hey - it's just a MODEL!
Painting and markings
I used mid-1950ies MLD Sea Furys and Sea Hawks as a design benchmark, but this Fury is placed just into the time frame around 1960 when the MLD introduced a new 3-digit code system. Before that, a code "6-XX" with the XX somewhere in the 70 region would have been appropriate, and I actually painted the fuselage sides a bit darker so as if the old code had recently been painted over.
Dutch MLD aircraft tended to keep their former users’ liveries, but in the FJ-4B’s case I thought that a light grey and white aircraft (USN style) with Dutch roundels would look a bit odd. So I settled for early NATO style with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper sides (Humbrol 123) and Sky from below (Testors 2049 from their Authentic Line).
I also went for an early design style with a low waterline - early Hawker Sea Furies were painted this way, and a high waterline would probably be more typical. But in the face of potential seriosu action, who knows...? Things tend to be toned down quickly, just remember the RN Harriers during the Falkland conflict. I'll admit that the aircraft looks a bit simple and dull now, but this IMHO just adds to the plausible look of this whif. I prefer such subtleties to garish designs.
The surfaces were weathered with dry-brushed lighter shades of the basic tones (mostly Humbrol 79, but also some 140 and 67, and Humbrol 90 and 166 below), including overpainted old codes in a slightly darker tone of EDSG, done with Revell 77. A light wash with black ink emphasizes edges and some details - the machine was not to look worn.
The interior was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140), the landing gear is white (Humbrol 130), and some details like the air intake rim, the edges of the landing gear covers, the flaps or the tips of the wing fences were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174), for some contrast to the overall grey upper sides.
The MLD markings were puzzled together. The roundels come from an Xtradecal sheet for various Hawker Sea Furies, the '202' code comes, among others, from a Grumman Bearcat aftermarket sheet. The 'KON. MARINE' line is hand-made, letter by letter, from a TL Modellbau aftremarket sheet.
Most stencils and warning sign decals come from the original decal sheet, as well as from a FJ-4 Xtradecal aftermarket sheet, from F-86 kits and the scrap box. I wanted these details to provide the color to the aircraft, so that it would not look too uniform, but still without flashy decorations and like a rather utilarian military item.
finally, the model received a coat of semi-matt varnish (Tamiya Acryllic), since MLD aircraft had a pretty glossy finish. No dirt or soot stains were added - the Dutch kept their (few) shipborne aircraft very clean and tidy!
So, all in all, a simple looking aircraft, but this Dutch Fury has IMHO a certain, subtle charm - probably also because it is a rather rare and unpopular aircraft, which in itself has a certain whiffy aura.
No DAPL, Berlin November 2016
Protest-Kundgebung gegen die DAPL (Dakota Access Pipeline) vor der US-Botschaft in der Clayallee 170 am 16. November 2016 mit rund 40 Teilnehmer*innen.
Die Veranstaltung war Teil des International Day of Action (Nov 15 #NoDAPL Day of Action at Army Corps of Engineers), zu dem das Indigenous Environmental Network aufgerufen hatte. Sie fand in berlin am 16. November statt, da an diesem Tag US-Präsident Obama Berlin besucht.
Die Dakota Access Pipeline (kurz: DAPL), auch Bakken Pipeline genannt, ist eine im Bau befindliche Erdölpipeline zwischen der erdölreichen Bakken-Formation in North Dakota und dem Pipelineknotenpunkt Patoka in Illinois. Die Pipeline soll eine Länge von 1.880 km haben und durch die US-Bundesstaaten North Dakota, South Dakota und Iowa bis nach Illinois führen. Ihr Bau wird von US-weiten Protesten begleitet und wurde mehrmals gerichtlich gestoppt.
Initiator des rund 3,8 Milliarden US-Dollar teuren Projekt ist der Pipelinebetreiber Energy Transfer Partners.
Dabei werden 200 Wasserläufe überquert ( "water-crossings" ). Vor allem im Gebiet des sich aus einem weit verzweigten Netz von Zuflüssen speisenden Missouri River verläuft die Pipeline durch eine große Flusslandschaft.
Der Protest gegen die Dakota Access Pipeline ist eine der größten Umweltbewegungen der 2000er Jahre in den USA. Der Protest führte zur größten Zusammenkunft von Indianer Nordamerikas seit 1920.
Die Sioux von Standing Rock wehren sich gegen den Bau der Pipeline über Grabstätten und heiligem Land ihrer Vorfahren. Viele ihrer Grabstätten und heilige Orte wurden bereits zerstört, weitere Zerstörungen wurden angekündigt…
Seit Ende August 2016 kamen immer mehr Menschen in das Gebiet von Cannon Ball südlich von Bismarck, um den Kampf der Standing Rock Sioux Nation gegen die Pipeline zu unterstützen. Im September 2016 lebten rund 3000 Menschen im "Red Warrior Camp" am Zusammenfluss des Missouri und des Cannonball Rivers.
© B. Sauer-Diete/bsd-photo-archiv
The photographic portfolio entitled “GLOBALIZING CONTAMINATIONS” was among the finalists at the PORTFOLIO SIFEST 2018 international award (Italy). This photography project is the result of a one-month period lived in Africa from Kenya to Tanzania. In the 1950s and 1960s, the European colonial powers gradually ceased to administer their African territories. The process of “apparent decolonization” led to the gradual departure of all the expatriate personnel of the colonizing nations: administrators, soldiers and all those who had settled in the “colony”. This process favored the creation of independent states and paved the way for new foreign influences over those of the colonial powers. Therefore, after some years living in Africa, I came to ask myself: “How has the influence, after decolonization, of European countries evolved in the face of the emancipation of African countries and the competition of new powers?”
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
Rally and March starting at City Hall, marching to Joe Fresh to demand justice for Bangladeshi garment workers and ending at Little Norway Park in solidarity with striking workers at Porter (Queens Quay and Bathurst)
Videos: bit.ly/MayDayTOVids
More info with links: www.toronto.nooneisillegal.org/MayDay
Poster series imagining a Solidarity City: on.fb.me/12HV9DO
For seven years, you have marched on May Day to celebrate and invigorate migrant justice struggles in Toronto. On International Workers Day, we march to build a Solidarity City. Solidarity City is a unified struggle for: Respect for Indigenous Sovereignty, Status for All, an End to Imperialism and Environmental Destruction, an End to Austerity and Attacks on the Poor and Working class, continued resistance against Patriarchy, Racism, Ableism and Homophobia and Transphobia
Pipelines, tankers, mines, and so-called development projects are being forced onto the lands of Indigenous nations. Harper, like every Prime Minister who came before him, refuses to respect the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and continues to neglect his treaty obligations, as seen in Omnibus Bill C-45. In the face of this and more, land defenders across Turtle Island continue to resist in powerful and inspiring ways. As we look towards an exciting summer of action and resistance fueled by the Idle No More movement, this May Day let us honor all ongoing decolonization struggles and commit to continuing our support for Indigenous sovereignty.
The past year has seen the implementation of C-31, dubbed the Refugee Exclusion Act, further criminalizing migrants and expanding the detention and deportation machine. Jason Kenney announced the creation of a designated countries of origin, a racist, two tiered system under which refugees get fewer rights based on their place of birth. This past November, many of us honored our communities and confronted Minister Kenney when he showed up in Toronto. On May 1st, let us take to the streets to build community alliances and resistance once again.
Exploitative temporary worker programs continue to expand and many migrant workers continue to meet deportation, injuries and in some cases death. Workers are being forced to pay thousands of dollars to get jobs in Canada for which entire families go in to debt, yet no provisions exist for status on landing. Since Harper came into power, over 72,000 people have been locked up in immigration detention. In December we rallied in solidarity with security certificate detainees Mohammad Mahjoub, Mohamed Harkat and Mahmoud Jaballah and all those locked up in immigration detention. This May Day let us take to the streets to end detentions and deportations and to call for freedom to move, freedom to stay and freedom to return!
On February 21st, Toronto City Hall reaffirmed its promise to providing services to residents without full immigration status. We will continue to build a Solidarity City where communities work together to ensure justice and dignity for all residents. The history of Access Without Fear in Toronto is a long one and on May Day let us march to celebrate our victories and commit to continued struggle.
In the face of austerity, climate destruction, colonial and capitalist wars and interventions here and across the world that push people out of their homes, let us fight for status for all. Status for All is the struggle for self-determination, just livelihood, housing, food, education, healthcare, childcare, shelter, justice and dignity for all people, with or without immigration status.
Coordinated by a coalition of community groups including Afghans United for Justice, AIDS ACTION NOW!, Anakbayan Toronto, Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students (APUS), Camp Sis, Casa Salvador Allende, Cinema Politica, Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA), Common Cause Toronto,Common Causes, CUPE local 1281,CUPE Local 4772, CUPE 3906 Executive, CUPE 3906 Political Action Committee, CUPE 4308, CUPE Ontario International Solidarity Committee, Educators for Peace and Justice, Faculty for Palestine (F4P), Grassroots Ontario Animal Liberation (GOAL) Network, Greater Toronto Workers' Assembly, Health for All, Independent Jewish Voices, Toronto, Injured Workers Action for Justice, International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Canada, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Canada, International Socialists, Jane and Finch Action Against Poverty [JFAAP], Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network, Law Union of Ontario, maggie's: toronto sex workers action project, May 1st Movement, No One Is Illegal - Toronto,Ontario Coalition Against Poverty,OPIRG York, Refugees without Border, Revolutionary Women's Collective-women united against imperialism, Rhythms of Resistance - Toronto,Rising Tide Toronto, Socialist Action / Ligue pour l'Action socialiste. Socialist Party of Ontario,Socialist Project, Student Christian Movement, The Mining Injustice Solidarity Network, The Sanctuary Network, Student Christian Movement, Toronto Haiti Action Committee, Toronto New Socialists, Toronto Rape Crisis Centre/Multicultural Women Against Rape, Toronto Young New Democrats, Trans Film Series,United Food and Commercial Workers, Women's Coordinating Committe for a Free Wallmapu [Toronto], Workers' Action Centre, York Federation of Students, Local 68 Canadian Federation of Students and more. To endorse the event, fill out this form bit.ly/ZDRwKU
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
This picture was taken during Decolonizing the Newsroom, July 5-8, 2022. The event was part of Re:Framing Migrants in the European Media, a project coordinated by the European Cultural Foundation.
Picture by Laurent Leger Adame (www.instagram.com/laurent.legeradame/)
This picture was taken during Decolonizing the Newsroom, July 5-8, 2022. The event was part of Re:Framing Migrants in the European Media, a project coordinated by the European Cultural Foundation.
Picture by Laurent Leger Adame (www.instagram.com/laurent.legeradame/)
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
. . . I hope it´s her brother! Who knows . . .
_____________________
The Hmong (RPA: Hmoob/Moob, IPA: [m̥ɔ̃ŋ]) are an ethnic group from the mountainous regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Hmong are also one of the sub-groups of the Miao ethnicity (苗族) in southern China. Hmong groups began a gradual southward migration in the 18th century due to political unrest and to find more arable land.
During the first and second Indochina Wars, France and the United States recruited thousands of Hmong people in Laos to fight against forces from north and south Vietnam and communist Pathet Lao insurgents, known as the Secret War, during the Vietnam War and the Laotian Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Hmong refugees fled to Thailand seeking political asylum. Thousands of these refugees have resettled in Western countries since the late 1970s, mostly the United States, but also in Australia, France, French Guiana, Canada, and Argentina. Others have returned to Laos under United Nations-sponsored repatriation programs.
SUBCULTURES
Hmong people have their own terms for their subcultural divisions. Hmong Der and Hmong Leng are the terms for two of the largest groups in America and Southeast Asia. In the Romanized Popular Alphabet, developed in the 1950s in Laos, these terms are written Hmoob Dawb (White Hmong) and Moob Leeg/Moob Ntsuab (Blue/Green Mong). The final consonants indicate with which of the eight lexical tones the word is pronounced.
White Hmong and Green Hmong speak mutually intelligible dialects of the Hmong language with some differences in pronunciation and vocabulary. One of the most characteristic differences is the use of the voiceless /m̥/ in White Hmong, indicated by a preceding "H" in Romanized Popular Alphabet. Voiceless nasals are not found in the Green Hmong dialect. Hmong groups are often named after the dominant colors or patterns of their traditional clothing, style of head-dress, or the provinces from which they come.
VIETNAM
Vietnamese Hmong women continuing to wear 'traditional' clothing tend to source much of their clothing as 'ready to wear' cotton (as opposed to traditional hemp) from markets, though some add embroidery as a personal touch. In SaPa, now with a 'standardised' clothing look, Black Hmong sub-groups have differentiated themselves by adopting different headwear; those with a large comb embedded in their long hair (but without a hat) call themselves Tao, those with a pillbox hat name themselves Giay, and those with a checked headscarf are Yao. For many, such as Flower Hmong, the heavily beaded skirts and jackets are manufactured in China.
NOMENCLATURE
In Southeast Asia, Hmong people are referred to by other names, including: Vietnamese: Mèo or H'Mông; Lao: ແມ້ວ (Maew) or ມົ້ງ (Mong); Thai: แม้ว (Maew) or ม้ง (Mong); Burmese: မုံလူမျိုး (mun lu-myo). The xenonym, "Mèo", and variants thereof, are considered highly derogatory by many Hmong people and are infrequently used today outside of Southeast Asia.
The Hmong people were also referred to by some European writers as the "Kings of the Jungle," because they used to live in the jungle of Laos. Because the Hmong lived mainly in the highland areas of Southeast Asia and China, the French occupiers of Southeast Asia gave them the name Montagnards or "mountain people", but this should not be confused with the Degar people of Vietnam, who were also referred to as Montagnards.
HMONG, MONG AND MIAO
Some non-Chinese Hmong advocate that the term Hmong be used not only for designating their dialect group, but also for the other Miao groups living in China. They generally claim that the word "Miao" or "Meo" is a derogatory term, with connotations of barbarism, that probably should not be used at all. The term was later adapted by Tai-speaking groups in Southeast Asia where it took on especially insulting associations for Hmong people despite its official status.
In modern China, the term "Miao" does not carry these negative associations and people of the various sub-groups that constitute this officially recognized nationality freely identify themselves as Miao or Chinese, typically reserving more specific ethnonyms for intra-ethnic communication. During the struggle for political recognition after 1949, it was actually members of these ethnic minorities who campaigned for identification under the umbrella term "Miao"-taking advantage of its familiarity and associations of historical political oppression.
Contemporary transnational interactions between Hmong in the West and Miao groups in China, following the 1975 Hmong diaspora, have led to the development of a global Hmong identity that includes linguistically and culturally related minorities in China that previously had no ethnic affiliation. Scholarly and commercial exchanges, increasingly communicated via the Internet, have also resulted in an exchange of terminology, including Hmu and A Hmao people identifying as Hmong and, to a lesser extent, Hmong people accepting the designation "Miao," within the context of China. Such realignments of identity, while largely the concern of economically elite community leaders, reflect a trend towards the interchangeability of the terms "Hmong" and "Miao."
HISTORY
The Hmong claim an origin in the Yellow River region of China. According to Ratliff, there is linguistic evidence to suggest that they have occupied the same areas of southern China for at least the past 2,000 years. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA in Hmong-Mien-speaking populations supports the southern origins of maternal lineages even further back in time, although Hmong-speaking populations show more contact with Han than Mien populations. Chinese sources describe that area being inhabited by 'Miao' people, a group with whom Hmong people are often identified.
The ancient town of Zhuolu, is considered to be the legendary birthplace of the Miao. Today, a statue of Chi You, widely proclaimed as the first Hmong king, has been erected in the town. The Guoyu book, considers Chi You’s Jui Li tribe to be related to the ancient ancestors of the Hmong, the San Miao people
CULTURE
The Hmong culture usually consists of a dominant hierarchy within the family. Males hold dominance over females and thus, a father is considered the head in each household. Courtships take place during the night when a man goes to visit a woman at her house and tries to woo her with sweet-talks through the thin walls of the house where the woman's bedroom may be located. If a man kidnaps an unwilling woman as a bride, she would have to marry him or risk having a tarnished reputation.
Today, bridenapping is uncommon because those marriages can end in divorce since women are no longer afraid of a tarnished reputation. During a marriage, the man pays the woman's family for taking away a daughter who is economically essential to her parents. Hmong women retain their own maiden names following marriage, but attends to the ancestors of their husbands. The children they bear take their husbands' clan names. Consequently, the Hmong favour having sons over daughters because sons perpetuate the clan.
The Hmong practice shamanism and ancestor worship. Like other animists, they also believe that all things are endowed with spiritual beings and so should be respected.
See Anne Fadiman's ethnography: The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down for more info.
Hmong families in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos practice subsistence agriculture, supplemented by hunting and some foraging. Although they have chickens, pigs and cows, the traditional staple of the Hmong consists mostly of vegetable dishes and rice. Domestic animals are highly valued and killed for consumption only during special events such as the New Year's Festival or during events such as a birth, marriage, or funeral ritual.
GEOGRAPHY
Roughly 95% of the Hmong live in Asia. Linguistic data show that the Hmong of the Peninsula stem from the Miao of southern China as one among a set of ethnic groups belonging to the Hmong–Mien language family. Linguistically and culturally speaking, the Hmong and the other sub-groups of the Miao have little in common.
In China the majority of the Hmong today live in Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan. The Hmong population is estimated at 3 million. No precise census data exist on the Hmong in China since China does not officially recognise the ethnonym Hmong and instead, clusters that group within the wider Miao group (8,940,116 in 2000). A few centuries ago, the lowland Chinese started moving into the mountain ranges of China's southwest. This migration, combined with major social unrest in southern China in the 18th and 19th century, served to cause some minorities of Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan to migrate south. A number of Hmong thus settled in the ranges of the Indochina Peninsula to practise subsistence agriculture.
Vietnam, where their presence is attested from the late 18th century onwards, is likely to be the first Indochinese country into which the Hmong migrated. During the colonization of 'Tonkin' (north Vietnam) between 1883 and 1954, a number of Hmong decided to join the Vietnamese Nationalists and Communists, while many Christianized Hmong sided with the French. After the Viet Minh victory, numerous pro-French Hmong had to fall back to Laos and South Vietnam.
At the 2009 national census, there were 1,068,189 Hmong living in Vietnam, the vast majority of them in the north of the country. The traditional trade in coffin wood with China and the cultivation of the opium poppy – both prohibited only in 1993 in Vietnam – long guaranteed a regular cash income. Today, converting to cash cropping is the main economic activity. As in China and Laos, there is a certain degree of participation of Hmong in the local and regional administration. In the late 1990s, several thousands of Hmong have started moving to the Central Highlands and some have crossed the border into Cambodia, constituting the first attested presence of Hmong settlers in that country.
In 2005, the Hmong in Laos numbered 460,000. Hmong settlement there is nearly as ancient as in Vietnam. After decades of distant relations with the Lao kingdoms, closer relations between the French military and some Hmong on the Xieng Khouang plateau were set up after World War II. There, a particular rivalry between members of the Lo and Ly clans developed into open enmity, also affecting those connected with them by kinship. Clan leaders took opposite sides and as a consequence, several thousand Hmong participated in the fighting against the Pathet Lao Communists, while perhaps as many were enrolled in the People's Liberation Army. As in Vietnam, numerous Hmong in Laos also genuinely tried to avoid getting involved in the conflict in spite of the extremely difficult material conditions under which they lived during wartime.
After the 1975 Communist victory, thousands of Hmong from Laos had to seek refuge abroad. Approximately 30 percent of the Hmong left, although the only concrete figure we have is that of 116,000 Hmong from Laos and Vietnam together seeking refuge in Thailand up to 1990.
In 2002 the Hmong in Thailand numbered 151,080. The presence of Hmong settlements there is documented from the end of the 19th century. Initially, the Siamese paid little attention to them. But in the early 1950s, the state suddenly took a number of initiatives aimed at establishing links. Decolonization and nationalism were gaining momentum in the Peninsula and wars of independence were raging. Armed opposition to the state in northern Thailand, triggered by outside influence, started in 1967 while here again, many Hmong refused to take sides in the conflict. Communist guerrilla warfare stopped by 1982 as a result of an international concurrence of events that rendered it pointless. Priority is since given by the Thai state to sedentarizing the mountain population, introducing commercially viable agricultural techniques and national education, with the aim of integrating these non-Tai animists within the national identity.
Burma most likely includes a modest number of Hmong (perhaps around 2,500) but no reliable census has been conducted there recently.
As result of refugee movements in the wake of the Indochina Wars (1946–1975), in particular in Laos, the largest Hmong community to settle outside Asia went to the United States where approximately 100,000 individuals had already arrived by 1990. California became home to half this group, while the remainder went to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania, Montana, and North Carolina. By the same date, 10,000 Hmong had migrated to France, including 1,400 in French Guyana. Canada admitted 900 individuals, while another 360 went to Australia, 260 to China, and 250 to Argentina. Over the following years and until the definitive closure of the last refugee camps in Thailand in 1998, additional numbers of Hmong have left Asia, but the definitive figures are still to be produced.
WIKIPEDIA
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.
This picture was taken during Decolonizing the Newsroom, July 5-8, 2022. The event was part of Re:Framing Migrants in the European Media, a project coordinated by the European Cultural Foundation.
Picture by Laurent Leger Adame (www.instagram.com/laurent.legeradame/)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.
Contrary to the claim that homosexuality is a European/Western import, it's actually homophobia that is the Western import. It was brought to Africa by missionaries and colonial officials in the late 19th, early 20th centuries (at the time when the moral panic over the new medical/psychological category of "homosexuality" was at its peak in the West) and inserted, so to speak, into African cultures along with Christianity, Victorian prudery, bourgeois dress codes, table manners, etc.
The anthropological and historical evidence makes it pretty clear that pre-colonial African societies had their own, often quite tolerant or even accepting, ways of accommodating alternative sexual ways-of-being into traditional social structures and kinship systems. Homophobia, including the sodomy laws that are still on the books in most African countries, are what are "unAfrican" therefore, not homosexuality in itself. -- John McAllister, a professor of literature at the University of Botswana
Image: Unknown/Anonymous artist; clipping from magazine article, 1990s
This picture was taken during Decolonizing the Newsroom, July 5-8, 2022. The event was part of Re:Framing Migrants in the European Media, a project coordinated by the European Cultural Foundation.
Picture by Laurent Leger Adame (www.instagram.com/laurent.legeradame/)
top ten finalists Iakov Chernikhov prize 2010
The Iakov Chernikhov Prize is awarded every two years to young masters of contemporary architecture
They should combine an innovative response to our time and simultaneously offer a professional challenge to the future. A jury consisting of authoritative international architects will select the winner from among the nominees chosen by an international committee of the experts
The jury examined 133 works of 133 nominees from 25 countries.
List of nominees, selected on the first day of the Jury meeting:
Alejanfro Aravena Mori (Chile)
Fantastic Norway AS (Norway)
Paisajes Emergentes (Colombia)
L.E.FT (USA)
Vector Architects (China)
OFIS architects (Slovenia)
Standardarchitecture (China)
DECOLONIZING ARCHITECTURE (Israel)
Feld 72 (Austria)
Bailo+Rull (Spain)
DORELL.GHOTMEH.TANE (France)
Julien de Smedt (Belgium)
Nikita Asadov (Russia)
Jean-Christophe Quinton (France)
Didier Fiuza Faustino (France)
Gramazio & Kohler (Switzerland)
Ge Ming (China)
Sou Fujimoto (Japan)
Solid Objectives SO – IL (USA)
HOLLMEN REUTER SANDMAN Architects (Finland)
Helen & Hard (Norway)
List of nominees, selected on the final day of the Jury meeting:
Top ten.
Nikita Asadov (Russia)
Jean-Christophe Quinton (France)
Alejandro Aravena (Chile)
Ronald Rietveld (Netherlands)
Paisajes Emergentes (Colombia)
L.E.F.T (USA)
Standard Architecture (China)
Decolonizing Architecture (Israel)
Feld 72 (Austria)
Fantastic Norway AS (Norway)
Curator statement:
Stefano Boeri
The eye of the needle of local space
Manifesto for a new form of Localism
1.
Even if it may seem paradoxical, globalization has further emphasized the irreducible specificity of local spaces.
2.
Yet "local space" is not to be understood as a mere geographical context, or the localization of a determined object in a place of tradition and historical culture, but rather as a spatial (physical, mineral) device capable of concentrating structural tendencies that – developed locally –unfold at the moment in which external flows of transformation enter into contact with a determined territory.
3.
Even if moved by external and immaterial forces, any event that implies material transformation incites and intercepts this local device. And is inevitably conditioned by it. Local space acts, in other words, like the eye of a needle through which the thread of transformation must necessarily pass.
4.
International architecture must today be able to recognize and value this new form of "localism".
This does not imply an opposition to global propensities but rather the need to absorb and regenerate these through the selective filter of local culture and its materials.
5.
This new perspective brings back into discussion the concepts of Regionalism and Context and introduces within the architectural realm the notion of Translation. As with language (often regenerated through neologisms), local architecture must receive the spaces produced by new social behaviours - as is the case world wide of new places of worship or commerce or of new forms of solitude and cohabitation – and translate them into the device of local space.
6.
Yet this translation is neither a simple reproduction "in style" nor a free interpretation. Contemporary architecture cannot become an Esperanto that cancels geographical differences or a sum of dialects that refuses contamination with the world.
7.
The eye of the needle of local space is a creative device that transforms global flows into fuel for regenerating places. It uses the whole world to build a place.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) was a Colossus-class aircraft carrier of the Royal Netherlands Navy. Formerly the British ship HMS Venerable, she was sold to the Netherlands in 1948 as a light attack carrier and operated Fairey Firefly strike fighters and Hawker Sea Fury fighters, which were in 1958 replaced by Hawker Sea Hawk jet aircraft. In 1960, she was involved in the decolonization conflict in Western New Guinea with Indonesia. After a major refit in 1964, following the settlement of issues threatening its former colonial territories and changes in the mission for the Royal Netherlands Navy within NATO, the role was changed to anti-submarine warfare carrier and primarily ASW aircraft and helicopters were carried. At that time, the last Dutch Sea Hawks were phased out and the Koninlijke Marine ’s FJ-4B fighter bombers were relegated to land bases and soon handed back to the USA and re-integrated into USMC units. As an alternative multi-role aircraft that could both deliver strikes against ground as well as sea targets and provide aerial defense for the carrier or escort its slow and vulnerable ASW aircraft, the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was procured.
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk was a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-powered Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg), had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) and very good handling, making it a serious threat in an aerial dogfight. The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions.
The A4D (re-named into A-4 under the USA’s unified designation system) was capable of carrying a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber and could even deliver nuclear weapons using a low-altitude bombing system and a "loft" delivery technique. The A-4 was originally powered by the Wright J65 turbojet engine, but from the A-4E onwards, the more fuel efficient and powerful Pratt & Whitney J52 engine was used. The Skyhawk proved to be a relatively common United States Navy aircraft export of the postwar era. Due to its small size, it could be operated from the older, smaller World War II-era aircraft carriers still used by many smaller navies during the 1960s. These older ships were often unable to accommodate newer Navy fighters such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-8 Crusader, which were faster and more capable than the A-4, but significantly larger and heavier than older naval fighters.
At the same time as the Netherlands, Australia was looking for a new carrier-borne jet aircraft, too, and in negotiations with Douglas for newly built A-4s for the RAN's carrier HMAS Melbourne, a Majestic-class light aircraft carrier. These aircraft had a very similar duty profile to those the Royal Netherlands Navy was looking for, and in order to save development costs and speed up the procurement process, the Royal Netherlands Navy simply adopted the Australian specifications which became the unique A-4G variant, the Skyhawk’s first dedicated export version.
The A-4G was directly developed with minor variations from the current, most modern Skyhawk variant, the USN's A-4F. In particular, the A-4G was not fitted with the late Skyhawk variants' characteristic avionics "hump", had a simple ranging radar for air-to-air combat and was modified to carry four underwing Sidewinder AIM-9B missiles (instead of just two), increasing their Fleet Defense capability. Additionally, the A-4Gs for the Royal Netherlands Navy received the avionics package to deploy radio-controlled AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, which the Kon. Marine had been using together with the FJ-4Bs for some years, and Skyhawks’ capability to provide buddy-to-buddy refueling services with a special pod made them a vital asset for carrier operations, too.
A total of twenty A-4G Skyhawks were purchased by the Royal Australian Navy in two batches for operation from HMAS Melbourne, and the Koninlijke Marine ordered twelve. These aircraft were part of the first A-4G production batch and arrived in 1967, together with four TA-4J trainers, for a total fleet of sixteen aircraft. The machines were delivered in the contemporary US Navy high-visibility scheme in Light Gull Grey and White, but they were soon re-painted in a less conspicuous scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and Sky underneath, conforming to NATO standards of the time. After initial conversion training from land bases the re-formed MLD 861 Squadron (a carrier-based unit that had operated Fairey during the Fifties) embarked upon HNLMS Karel Doorman in February 1968 with a standard contingent of six carrier-based aircraft. The rest was stationed at Valkenburg Naval Air Base for maintenance and training and frequently rotated to the carrier.
However, the Dutch Skyhawks' career at sea was very short – it lasted in fact only a couple of months! A boiler room fire on 26 April 1968 removed HNLMS Karel Doorman from Dutch service. To repair the fire damage, new boilers were transplanted from the incomplete HMS Leviathan. But this did not save the ship, and in 1969 it was decided that the costs for repairing the damage in relation to the relatively short time Karel Doorman was still to serve in the fleet proved to be her undoing and she was sold to the Argentine Navy, renamed Veinticinco de Mayo, where she would later play a role in the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict.
Additionally, the fatal fire accident coincided with the arrival of land-based long range maritime patrol aircraft for the Royal Netherlands Navy that were to take over the ASW role Karel Doorman had been tasked to perform ever since the start of the 1960s. These were one squadron of Breguet Atlantique sea-reconnaissance aircraft and one of P-2 Neptunes, while the international NATO anti-submarine commitment was taken over by a squadron of Westland Wasp helicopters operated from six Van Speijk-class anti-submarine frigates.
This left the Royal Netherlands Navy with a full operational squadron of almost brand-new aircraft that had overnight lost their raison d'être. To avoid sunk costs the government decided to keep the Skyhawks in active service, even though only land-based now and as part of the Netherlands air force's home defense – a plan that had been envisioned for the A-4Gs for the mid-Seventies, anyway.
In 1974, the A-4G's MLD 861 Squadron was disbanded (again) and the aircraft were formally transferred to the Royal Netherlands Air Force, where they received new tactical codes (H-30XX - H- 30YY) and formed the new RNLAF 332 Squadron, primary tasked with aerial support for the Netherlands Marine Corps. To avoid staff and equipment transfer costs to a different location, the Skyhawks stayed at their former home base, Valkenburg Naval Air Base, where they operated alongside the MLD’s new long-range maritime patrol aircraft.
At that time, the machines received a small update during regular overhauls, including the ability to deploy the new TV-guided AGM-65 Maverick missile (which replaced the unreliable and rather ineffective AGM-12) as well as more effective AIM-9J air-to-air missiles, and an AN/APQ-51 radar warning system, recognizable through small cone-shaped radomes under the nose, at the tail and under the wing roots. Being land-based now, some machines received a new NATO-style camouflage in Olive Drab and Dark Grey with Light Grey undersides, even though the Skyhawks’ full carrier capability was retained in case of a NATO deployment on another nation’s carrier.
In 1979, when the RNLAF received its first F-16A/B fighters, all Skyhawks eventually received a more subdued grey three-tone camouflage with toned-down markings which was effective both over the sea and in the sky, similar to the RNLAF’s NF-5A/B day fighters.
However, the arrival of the modern F-16, which was in any aspect superior to the A-4 except for a lack of carrier-capability, meant that the RNLAF Skyhawks’ career did not last much longer. In the early Eighties, all Dutch A-4Gs were replaced with license-built F-16A/B fighter bombers. They were placed in store and eventually sold to Israel in 1985, where they were revamped and re-sold with surplus A-4Es to Indonesia as attrition replacements after high losses during the anti-guerilla warfare in East Timor. They were delivered in 1986 and served in Indonesia until 2003, where the last Skyhawks were finally retired in 2007.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet engine, 8,500 lbf (38 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project was more or less a stopgap: I had a Hasegawa 1:72 A-4E/F kit in The Stash™, primarily bought for its separate avionics hump that is supposed to be transplanted on a Fujimi A-4C someday to create an A-4L, of which AFAIK no OOB kit exists. However, I played with potential fictional operators, and read about the Australian A-4Gs. When I compared them with the historic timeframe of the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman, I recognized very close parallels (see background above) so that a small Skyhawk fleet for a single carrier with a focus on ASW duties would make sense – even though Karel Doorman was soon struck by a fire and ended the story. However, this was a great framework to tell the story of Dutch Skyhawks that never had been, and my model depicts such an aircraft soon after its update and in late RNLAF colors.
The Hasegawa kit is not bad, but IMHO there are better offerings, you can see the mold’s age. It goes together easily, comes with a good pilot figure and offers optional parts for an E or F Skyhawk, plus lots of ordnance, but it comes with raised (yet very fine) panel lines and an odd canopy: the clear part is actually only the canopy’s glass, so that the frame is still molded into the fuselage. As a result, opening the cockpit is a VERY tricky stunt (which I eventually avoided), and the clear piece somehow does not fit well into its intended opening. The mold dates back to 1969, when the A-4E/F was brand new, and this was all acceptable in the Seventies and Eighties. But for today’s standards the Hasegawa kit is a bit outdated and, in many cases, overpriced. Permanent re-boxings and short-run re-issues do not make the old kit any better.
Despite these weaknesses the kit was built OOB, without big modifications or the optional camel hump for the A-4F, with the early straight IFR probe and with parts from the OOB ordnance. This included the ventral drop tank (which comes with an integral pylon) and the underwing pylons; from the outer pair the integral launch rails for the Bullpups were sanded away and replaced with a pair of longer launch rails for AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs from the scrap box.
As a modern/contemporary detail I scratched a training/dummy AGM-65 Maverick without fins for one of the inner underwing stations, which would later become a colorful eye-catcher on the otherwise quite subdued aircraft. Additionally, some small blade antennae were added around the hull, e. g. on the front wheel well cover for the Bullpup guidance emitter.
Painting and markings:
A Kon. Marine Skyhawk offers a wide range of painting options, but I tweaked the background that I could incorporate a specific and unique Dutch paint scheme – the early Eighties livery of the RNLAF’s NF-5A/Bs. These aircraft initially wore a NATO-style green/grey livery with pale grey undersides, but they were in the late Seventies, with the arrival of the F-16s, repainted with the F-16s’ “Egypt One” colors (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375). However, the Egypt One scheme was not directly adopted, only the former RAF-style camouflage pattern was re-done with the new colors. Therefore, the Skyhawks were “in my world” transferred from the Dutch Navy to the Air Force and received this livery, too, for which I used Humbrol 125, 126 and 127. The pattern was adapted from the sleek NF-5s as good as possible to the stouter A-4 airframe, but it worked out.
However, the result reminds unintentionally a lot of the Australian A-4Gs’ late livery, even though the Aussie Skyhawks carried a different pattern and were painted in different tones. Even more strangely, the colors on the model looked odd in this striped paint scheme: the dark Gunship Gray appeared almost violet, while the Medium Gray had a somewhat turquoise hue? Weird! Thankfully, this disappeared when I did some post-panel-shading after a light black in washing…
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), even though there’s hardly anything recognizable through the small canopy: the pilot blocks anything. The landing gear and the respective wells became classic bright white (Revell 301), as well as the air intake ducts; the landing gear covers received a thin red outline.
The Sidewinders and their launch rails became white, the drop tank was painted in FS 36375 like the underside. The dummy AGM-65 was painted bright blue with a white tip for the live seeker head.
The decals were gathered from various sources. The RNLAF roundels came from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the tactical code from a Swiss F-5E. The small fin flash is a personal addition (this was not common practice on RNLAF aircraft), the red unit badge with the seahorse comes from a French naval WWII unit. Most stencils were taken from the OOB sheet but supplemented with single bits from an Airfix Skyhawk sheet, e. g. for the red trim around the air intakes, which was tricky to create. The interior of the fuselage air brakes was painted in bright red, too.
After a Koninlijke Marine FJ-4B Fury some years ago, here’s a worthy and logical successor, even though it would have quickly lost its naval base, HNLMS Karel Doorman. Really bad timing! Even though not much was changed, this simple looking aircraft has IMHO a certain, subtle charm – even though the paint scheme makes the Dutch Skyhawk look more Australian than intended, despite representing an A-4G, too. But time frame and mission profiles would have been too similar to ignore this parallel. Not a spectacular model, but quite convincing.