+++ 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.

The only remaining Scottish Crown Type C post box in Hong Kong is located on the north side of Statue Square. It does not bear the current Queen's royal symbol, in line with post boxes installed in Scotland after 1953, as she is not recognized as Queen Elizabeth the second there (they recognized Mary Queen of Scots instead of Elizabeth I). Co-incidentally, or not, the post box faces Scottish-dominated HSBC's headquarters. Hong Kong Post recently announced it will cover all royal insignia on colonial-era post boxes to "avoid confusion", and following comments from Beijing that Hong Kong is not decolonizing fast enough. This threat explains why there were so many people taking photos of the box when this shot was taken.

 

+++ 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.

+++ 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.

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.

+++ 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.

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

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

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

Proud Breastfeeding moms

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

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

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/)

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

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

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/)

One of the performance boats from The Venus Boys' production "Siren Quingdom" on the canal.

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

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

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

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

Not-A-Party Election Party Presented by the Urban Worker Project + Gen Why.

 

www.eventbrite.ca/e/not-a-party-election-party-presented-...

 

SPEAKERS

Stephanie Nakitsas and Andrew Cash - Founders of the Urban Worker Project

Hessed Torres - migrant worker and community organizer for Migrante BC

Paul Kershaw - Founder of Generation Squeeze and the Code Red Affordable Housing Campaign

Irene Lanzinger - President of the BC Federation of Labour and Better Can Happen Here Campaign

Eugene Boulanger - Independent artist, student, activist for decolonization

Rachel Flood - new parent, independent worker and representative for $10-a-day Childcare Campaign.

TALENT

Rup Sidhu + Anjali Appadurai: www.rupsidhu.com/musaic

totaltele.com/u-s-huawei-ban-a-pyrrhic-victory-spurring-d...

U.S. Huawei ban: A Pyrrhic victory spurring digital decolonisation

 

Pyrrhus of Epirus, a Hellenistic king best known for his self-destructive military campaigns, has been immortalised by the term ‘Pyrrhic victory’—a win so costly that it is actually a catastrophic defeat. His famous lament after such a battle victory, “Another such victory and we are undone,” captures the essence of a Pyrrhic victory and serves as a potent warning in today’s complex world of tech geopolitics. As we analyze the short-, medium- and long-term impact of American economic coercion against Huawei and China, more broadly, it’s worthwhile to consider whether this could turn into a Pyrrhic scenario – a short-term triumph that is actually a devastating long-term loss.

 

The U.S. ban on Huawei, announced in May 2019, marked a crucial pivot in the arena of tech geopolitics. This decision was made with a view to curbing the Chinese telecom giant’s escalating influence within the global Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry. Undeniably, the move has had immediate and far-reaching impacts. However, in an environment as dynamic and resilient as the ICT sector, the ban didn’t merely constrain Huawei as originally intended. Instead, it has triggered a sequence of unexpected outcomes rippling across diverse fronts. These consequences, many of which are still unfolding, stretch beyond the company itself and bring into focus the broader global tech landscape.

 

In the aftermath of the U.S. ban, Huawei confronted immense challenges. The ban severed critical supply chain links and even raised questions about the company’s ability to survive. However, their 2022 financials demonstrate a remarkable turnaround, evidencing their resilience amidst these adversities. For example, revenues increased to 642 billion in 2021.

 

To overcome these challenges, Huawei embarked on strategic shifts that could redefine the global tech landscape. Not only did Huawei launch successful new business lines, such as autonomous vehicles and cloud computing, that are less susceptible to economic coercion, the company also developed an in-house replacement for Oracle’s ERP system. This showcases not only their formidable technical aptitude but also demonstrates their adaptability and readiness to tackle immense challenges in the rapidly evolving technological landscape.

 

Moreover, drawing from successful examples such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Slack, and Google AdSense, Huawei’s in-house ERP system may emerge as a formidable competitor to Oracle. Much like AWS, which originated as Amazon’s internal infrastructure to manage and scale their online retail operations, Huawei’s ERP system could harness its experience in managing a complex, multinational technology business and bring that to market. This would cater to companies, governments and other entities looking for efficient, large-scale solutions borne from real-world usage.

 

However, the U.S. ban on Huawei triggered more than just an immediate crisis for the company and questions about the future of its key American technology partners; it ignited a chain reaction that has reverberated globally. Consider European telecom carriers, many of which heavily relied on Huawei’s competitively priced and technologically advanced equipment for their infrastructure, especially for 5G rollouts. According to Reuters, Vodafone has spent EUR200 million replacing Huawei equipment in its core network while BT has spent GBP500 million removing Huawei equipment from the UK and Deutsche Telekom spent EUR3 billion removing Huawei’s 5G antennas. French carriers have even sued the government over this. Bouygues Telecom said rip and replace would cost them roughly EUR82 million, and Altice France said it would cost them even more.The ban resulted in increased costs and delayed 5G implementation, creating a substantial upheaval in their strategic plans.

 

This ripple effect has not stopped at Europe’s doorstep. It’s also made waves in developing nations that relied on Huawei’s cost-effective solutions for their digital expansion. Now, they are left to scramble for alternatives, which may not only be more expensive but could also slow their digital transformation journeys.

 

Not surprisingly, the U.S. ban on Huawei unintentionally amplified the call for digital decolonization. By revealing the fragility of an over-reliance on the American technology stack, the ban has nudged countries to rethink their tech dependencies, thereby challenging the stranglehold of American tech powerhouses. For instance, India’s ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (self-reliant India) initiative and Europe’s GAIA-X are fostering growth of domestic tech industries.

 

China, through its titan Huawei, is demonstrating robustness and adaptability, epitomized by their strides towards homegrown operating systems and semiconductor technologies. This progress suggests a reshaping of the global tech landscape, with new and traditional players striving for digital leadership.

 

In essence, the ban, while designed to constrain Huawei, has stirred a global shift towards digital decolonization. It’s not just a survival tale for Huawei; it’s a turning point signaling a potential rebalancing of global digital power.

 

While the U.S. ban aimed to constrain Huawei’s growth and influence, it seems to have inadvertently triggered a resilience that may culminate in a strategic upper hand for Huawei and, by extension, China’s tech industry. Much like King Pyrrhus, the U.S. might soon find that its ‘victory’ in curbing Huawei could come at a greater cost than anticipated. In the US, the government has allocated US$1.9 billion to replace Huawei telecommunications equipment in rural operators’ networks. Already though, applications for compensation of actual costs totalling up to US$5.6 billion have already been filed. The cost of removing Chinese equipment according to the Federal Communications Commission’s own assessment was estimated at US$5.3 billion, almost three times the budget Congress had set aside.

  

Rather than capitulating under pressure, Huawei is reforging itself in the heat of this crisis. Its drive to develop an in-house ERP system, a feat that few global companies have accomplished, is one such compelling signal of this resilience. This initiative, while meeting Huawei’s immediate need for a replacement to Oracle’s system, also harbors the potential to challenge Oracle’s market dominance if Huawei decides to commercialize its ERP solution, similar to the successes of AWS, Slack, and Google AdSense. Moreover, the backlash from the ban is no longer confined within the U.S.-China tech rivalry. It’s incited a global chain reaction, instigating hesitations about reliance on U.S. tech firms and inciting ambitions for digital self-reliance.

 

The U.S. stance on China does not necessarily reflect the views of American business. For example, Micron, a memory chip maker faces a significant loss of revenue and market share in China. Other U.S. firms, such as NVIDIA, are worried about losing access to the lucrative Chinese market, where they face increasing competition from local rivals. NVIDIA’s CEO Jensen Huang warned that the U.S. should be careful not to alienate China, which is a key market for the technology industry. He said: “If [China] can’t buy from the United States, they’ll just build it themselves.” Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, also demonstrated the significance of China for his company’s global strategy by visiting the country and meeting with top officials. These cases illustrate the complex and uncertain implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the tech sector.

 

In sum, while the U.S. may have initially appeared victorious with the Huawei ban, the long-term implications suggest a different narrative. This ‘victory’ might indeed be a Pyrrhic one, as the resultant strategic adaptations, global chain reactions, and the acceleration of digital decolonization may reshape the global tech landscape to the detriment of U.S. tech hegemony.

 

www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/fast-charge-huawei-ban-con...

 

Huawei’s US ban continues to be a terrible thing for consumers

OPINION: Four years after the US set Huawei in its sights with a flurry of sanctions, Huawei is still trying to maintain a smartphone offering devoid of Google services. The worst part is that the phones are pretty terrific, making the fact they’re difficult to recommend to the vast majority even more frustrating.

 

For those that have been living under a phoneless rock for the past few years, Huawei is in a bit of a geopolitical jam. The company was accused by then-President Trump of shady business practices with the Chinese government that led to it being added to something called the Entity List, essentially blocking Huawei from working with any business operating in the US.

 

That includes not only Qualcomm, the chipset maker of choice for a huge number of smartphones, but the likes of Intel and, most importantly, Google. This means that no Huawei phone from 2019 onwards can ship with Google services pre-installed, meaning no access to Google Play, Google-developed apps or any apps that rely on Google services in the backend.

 

This has forced Huawei to completely revamp its approach to smartphones with its open-source EMUI/HarmonyOS operating system based on the open-source version of Android, and it sports its own version of Google Play dubbed AppGallery.

 

It’s a great achievement, but four years on, it still lacks plenty of key apps used by Westerners, making it difficult to recommend to anyone but the most dedicated Huawei fans. That’s a pretty big shame as, even with the ban in place, Huawei continues to deliver some of the best smartphone technology around.

 

That really rang true earlier this week when I got my first chance to play with Huawei’s latest top-end foldable, the Mate X3. I’ve used a fair few foldables in my time – in fact, I’d like to think I’ve seen the vast majority of those in the Western market – but none quite surprised me like the Mate X3.

 

The book-style foldable is lightyears ahead of the competition with a form factor much thinner (5.3mm when unfolded) and lighter (239g) than the competition, a gapless close and one of the best hinge mechanisms so far. In a word, it’s exquisite.

 

The new “multi-dimensional hinge” is the result of years of R&D from Huawei, coming a long way from the crunchy hinge of its initial foldable, the Huawei Mate X. The Mate X3’s hinge is smooth with just the right level of resistance that makes it easy to unfold one-handed but not easy enough for it to come open on its own.

 

That hinge mechanism also allows for one of the most muted display creases I’ve seen yet, with very little hint that this is a foldable display when fully opened.

 

It also just feels nice in the hand, complete with a satin-like finish that perfectly rounds off the premium experience on offer.

 

Throw in capable cameras including a 50MP main, 13MP ultrawide and 12MP periscope, fast charging at 66W and a fairly large 4800mAh battery and you’ve potentially got the best foldable hardware around right now.

 

However, the fact that it doesn’t run Google Play services, doesn’t offer 5G connectivity nor the latest Snapdragon chipset – all as a direct result of the Entity List – it’s almost impossible to recommend to any but the most dedicated (and anti-Google) tech fans out there, especially with a £1,999 price tag.

 

It’s a similar story with the recently-announced flagship, the Huawei P60 Pro. As my colleague Max discovered when he went hands-on with the P60 Pro, the camera tech is truly next-level, sporting a 48MP main with a variable aperture that can shift between f/1.4 and f/4.0, a 48MP telephoto with 90mm zoom and a 13MP ultrawide capable of delivering impressive images like those taken on a sunset safari below.

 

With tech as impressive as this readily available, it’s so disappointing that most people won’t even consider using a phone that doesn’t offer access to Google Play and many popular Google-based apps that Westerners rely on for day-to-day use.

 

Ultimately, it’s the consumer that misses out, and we should be furious.

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 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.

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

Proud Breastfeeding moms

Sep 25, 2022

Philadelphia

I. Overview

 

This photograph, taken in 1936 and displayed next to the path into the historic center of Bruges, portrays a mixed group of missionary priests, religious sisters, local clergy, and affiliated laywomen gathered in front of the historic Hof de Wyngaerd van Maria (“Court of the Vineyard of Mary”) on the south side of the Bruges historic center. The image captures an intersection of centuries-old Bruges charitable traditions and the intensely active Belgian Catholic missionary movement of the interwar era.

 

The composition is highly intentional: the most senior clergy and religious are seated in the front row, flanked by members of missionary congregations and local Bruges religious houses, with younger laywomen—likely supporters, postulants, or trainees—standing behind. The picture documents a missionary visitation or inspection event, typical in Belgium in the 1920s–30s, when missionary orders circulated through European centers for recruitment, formation, and administrative coordination.

 

II. The Building: “Hof de Wyngaerd van Maria”

A. Origins and Function

 

The building behind the group is part of the complex historically associated with the Onze-Lieve-Vrouwehospitaal (Hospital of Our Lady), one of Bruges’ oldest institutions. The “Court of the Vineyard of Mary” was one of the city’s godshuizen—small charitable houses or almshouses often endowed for poor women, widows, or religious workers.

 

B. Architectural Stratigraphy

 

The façade exhibits several distinct historical layers:

 

Medieval Stonework (15th–16th century):

The deeply weathered limestone surrounding the doorway is typical of late-medieval hospital outbuildings—irregular coursing, mixed ashlar and rubble, and significant surface erosion.

 

Baroque Portal and Marian Niche (late 17th–early 18th century):

 

The elaborate sculpted niche with scrollwork and volutes, containing a seated Virgin Mary, belongs to the late Flemish Baroque. The cartouche bears the inscription:

“Hof de Wyngaerd van Maria — Mater Vineae Nostrae Ora Pro Nobis”

“Court of the Vineyard of Mary — Mother of our Vineyard, pray for us.”

This title situates the house within Bruges’ longstanding Marian devotional culture.

 

19th- to Early-20th-Century Brick Restoration:

 

The red-brick lateral wings reflect the “neo-Bruges” restoration program (c. 1850–1910), when older structures were rebuilt or regularized to evoke a medieval aesthetic.

 

The architectural layering makes the building an emblem of Bruges: medieval in origin, Baroque in devotional styling, and 19th-century in restoration philosophy.

 

III. Clergy and Religious in the Front Row

 

A. The White Fathers (Missionaries of Africa)

 

Two heavily bearded men in white or pale robes, seated to left and right of center, are unmistakably members of the Missionaries of Africa, popularly known as the White Fathers. Their attire—long, North-African-inspired white tunics, cinctures, pectoral crosses, and distinctive head coverings—was intentionally modeled on Maghreb and Levantine clerical dress.

 

In the 1930s, Belgium was a major center for the White Fathers’ recruitment and administration (especially for missions in Congo, Rwanda-Burundi, and the Sahara). Their presence here indicates an official missionary visitation.

 

B. Senior Missionary Cleric (Likely a White Father Superior)

 

The older, white-robed cleric seated between the prioress and Canon Hoornaert likely represents a visiting superior or senior administrative figure within the White Fathers. His placement in the center of the front row adheres to ecclesiastical portrait etiquette.

 

C. Canon Hoornaert (Mission Procurator)

 

Seated in a black cassock, the diocesan Canon Hoornaert served as a mission procurator—the official who coordinated logistics, funding, and training for missionary clergy and sisters. His presence explains the gathering: he would have orchestrated missionary visits and formation sessions in Bruges.

 

D. The Augustinian Canoness (Hospital Sister)

 

The sister in a black veil and white coif, seated near the center, is identifiable as an Augustinian Canoness, almost certainly associated with the Hospital of Our Lady. These sisters historically staffed Bruges’ medical institutions and worked alongside the godshuizen networks.

 

IV. The Sisters in White Habits: The White Sisters

 

The two sisters at far left and far right in pure white habits are members of the Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Africa, commonly called the White Sisters—the parallel female branch of the White Fathers. Their all-white attire and simple crosses match archival photographs from the 1910s–40s.

 

Their presence alongside the White Fathers underscores the photograph’s missionary purpose: the White Sisters were major providers of medical, educational, and catechetical labor in African missions.

 

V. The Laywomen and Younger Religious in the Rear Rows

 

The back rows are composed of approximately a dozen young women—some likely:

 

> postulants or novices preparing for missionary roles,

 

> nursing or teaching trainees,

 

> local Catholic laywomen who supported missionary guilds, sewing rooms, or fundraising activities.

 

Belgian missionary houses of the interwar period commonly drew on local women’s groups to prepare equipment, linens, vestments, medical supplies, and catechetical materials for overseas deployment.

 

VI. The Event Depicted: A Missionary Visitation and Formation Gathering

 

This photograph typifies a missionary inspection and formation event, a common feature of Belgian Catholic life between the world wars. Such visits involved:

 

periodic returns of missionary priests and sisters from Africa or the Middle East,

 

recruitment and preparation of new sisters and lay helpers,

 

administrative meetings presided over by a diocesan mission procurator (like Canon Hoornaert),

 

the ceremonial reinforcement of solidarity between the historic religious institutions of Bruges (especially hospital congregations) and the global missionary world.

 

The choice of setting—the Vineyard of Mary—situates the event in a symbolically potent space: a centuries-old Marian charitable house, now serving as a node in Belgium’s vigorous global missionary network.

 

VII. Interpretive Summary

 

This 1936 portrait captures a moment where Bruges’ medieval charitable traditions and its Baroque Marian piety converge with the global ambitions of Belgium’s missionary era. Layered in one image are:

 

> a medieval hospital house,

 

> a Baroque Marian façade naming the Virgin as keeper of the “vineyard,”

 

> mission procurators and visiting missionary priests,

 

> White Fathers and White Sisters in their distinctive Orientalizing habits,

 

> Augustinian Canonesses rooted in the city’s medical and charitable past,

 

> laywomen and novices drawn into the twentieth-century missionary movement.

 

The photograph is both a historical artifact of Bruges and a window into Belgium’s interwar Catholic world—a moment where ancient local religiosity and global missionary outreach intersect visibly on a small cobbled courtyard.

 

From this moment in 1936, the trajectories of the organizations represented in the photograph diverged dramatically. The White Fathers, then at the height of their expansion, were transformed by both decolonization and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Their membership shifted from predominantly European to predominantly African; their focus moved from conversion to collaboration, and their work today centers on peacebuilding, refugee assistance, and interreligious dialogue. The White Sisters underwent a comparable transition, turning over schools and hospitals to African leaders and shifting their European houses into administrative and retirement roles while expanding their presence in Africa, where their membership now draws substantially from local vocations.

 

The Augustinian Canonesses of Bruges, once the backbone of the city’s hospital system, saw their institutional role decline after World War II as hospitals professionalized and secularized. Their numbers dwindled, their convents closed or consolidated, and the Hospital of Our Lady eventually became a heritage site and museum, preserving their history but no longer depending on them for medical care. The office of the mission procurator, embodied in 1936 by Canon Hoornaert, also changed in character: what was once an administrative hub for overseas missions evolved into a diocesan outreach office emphasizing global partnerships rather than direct missionary governance.

 

As for the Hof de Wyngaerd van Maria, its function as a living religious institution diminished as the charitable godshuizen system declined. By the late twentieth century it had become part of Bruges’ protected architectural patrimony—its medieval stonework, Baroque niche, and nineteenth-century restorations preserved as an artifact of the city’s layered religious and charitable past. Today it stands not as a missionary house but as a historical witness to the long arc of Bruges’ religious life and to the era when Belgium was one of the most active missionary nations in the Catholic world.

 

Taken together, the photograph captures a point of convergence that was already on the verge of transformation: a moment when European religious vocations were still abundant, when missionary orders radiated outward from Belgium to the global South, and when Bruges’ ancient hospital and almshouse structures still resonated with active devotional and charitable use. In the decades that followed, these currents evolved into new forms—globalized congregations led increasingly by African members, local religious institutions transformed into heritage sites, and the missionary impulse reframed through post-colonial and post-conciliar sensibilities. What remains is the photograph itself: a testament to the intertwining of medieval charity, Baroque devotion, and twentieth-century global Catholicism on a small street leading into the historic heart of Bruges.

  

This text is a collaboration with ChatGPT.

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

Bira Carvalho - Decolonize Your Eyes Photos

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

1962 - 2012 Fifty years of Independence from the colonial France.

 

The Algerian War, also known as the Algerian War of Independence or the Algerian Revolution (Arabic: الثورة الجزائرية‎ Ath-Thawra Al-Jazā’iriyya; French: Guerre d'Algérie, "Algerian War") was a war between France and the Algerian independence movements from 1954 to 1962, which led to Algeria gaining its independence from France. An important decolonization war, it was a complex conflict characterized by guerrilla warfare, maquis fighting, terrorism, the use of torture by both sides, and counter-terrorism operations. The conflict was also a civil war between loyalist Algerians who believed in a French Algeria and their insurrectionist Algerian Muslim counterparts. Effectively started by members of the National Liberation Front (FLN) on November 1, 1954, during the Toussaint Rouge ("Red All Saints' Day"), the conflict shook the foundations of the French Fourth Republic (1946–58) and led to its eventual collapse.

 

The brutal 1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence saw atrocities committed on both sides with Algerian historians putting the death toll at 1.5 million Algerian victims while French historians say around 400,000 people from both sides were killed.

 

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

At the end of the Walls Optional event at Camosun on April 27, student Alisha Parks who is of Mohawk, Irish and Danish ancestry, revealed the painting titled ‘Gifts of the Heartberry.’

 

This artwork, which is to be hung in the Lansdowne Library, has been gifted to the college as part of a special project for Indigenous Education program with instructor Hjalmer Wenstob. Alisha’s project, ‘Heartberry methodology: decolonizing how Camosun supports disability’, was done in collaboration with Sue Doner from the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and Alison Bowe from the Centre for Accessible Learning.

 

“As an Indigenous student with disability, I feel a personal accountability to find ways to generate positive transformations in terms of accessibility,” says Alisha.

 

Pictured left to right: instructional designer Sue Donor, student Alisha Parks and instructor Hjalmer Wenstob.

 

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