Oh man, the amount of Dutch "we're going to build a knowledge economy" news articles I've seen in the last decade that barely hide their colonial mindset is staggering, and the implied assumption that "we" are smarter than "them" is so blatantly racist that I'd almost feel offended if I didn't know that they'll reap what they sow with that attitude soon enough.
And yes it stinks of "we'll live with the hard part of telling other people what to do".
You clearly haven't dealt with German managers at their companies operating in Eastern Europe ;)
Jokes aside, "behaving badly abroad while showing their best behavior at home" is basically yet another proud colonial tradition, isn't it?
I wish this didn't ring so true. It is so prevalent that for those who were raised locally and who went through said university schooling it is still painfully easy to distinguish from which student union in which city these guys originate based on how they treat each other, even when they graduated decades ago. Which ironically means that they are guilty of the kind of primitive tribalistic nonsense that they project onto other cultures.
... actually, now that I wrote that out, I guess that could partially explain a few things as well.
(and I'm well aware that this is not a problem unique to the Netherlands, but it still sucks)
I was working for a major Dutch electronics company and it was interesting to watch how whenever colleagues from their US/German brach would come visit the Dutch managers would treat them like equals and invite them to drinks and dinners but whenever colleagues from their Czech/China/Singapore branch would visit, the Dutch managers would politely pretend they don't exist.
As an Eastern European immigrant, I can think of worse things you can be called in the West than Maestro!. You have no idea how good you have it.
No Problem with that ;)
It's not necessary colonialist as such, merely takes the past history as implications of future patterns. The so called colonialist powers were ahead in the game from 1700's up to the middle of the 20th century.
Colonialism coincided with the rise of industrialization and science. The so called "colonized" nations did not have the chance to utilize these and rise up to their full human potential.
I think a good historical example is that of Japan. Japan was effectively a medieval state in 1850 when the Perry expedition forced it to the modern era [0]. And 50 years later they beat a major world power in a technological military engagement in the Battle of Tsushima [1] against Russia! Gaining 500 years of advancements in technology in 50 years really amazing. But it really just reflects that we are all human, and all successes are due standing in the shoulder of past giants. And late comers to the game still have those same shoulder to stand on.
I suppose, then, half a century - or, two generations - is a good rule of thumb on how long it takes for a sovereign power to play catchup and to leapfrog to current "state of the art" just as long as it has a functioning state.
There are fascinating artifacts from the period following Japan's opening up to foreign trade, reminiscent of European science in the Renaissance era - with an Asian twist.
I'd like to point out though, that there was a steady "leak" of technology, or rather cultural exchange with the West, through the Dutch since the 17th century.
Japan–Netherlands relations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Netherlands_rela...
---
To return to the "leap-frogging to the modern era" - it seems that developing nations are all in the process of doing this. I recall reading how many African countries "skipped over" the building of traditional telephone infrastructure, and went staight to mobile.
That also supports your argument that it only takes a couple generations for a country to catch up to modern standard of technology.
But to surpass it, and become the leading edge, probably requires a bigger cultural change - to have an academic and business environment that fosters innovation. In that aspect, I think the U.S. has a lead in the world, and will continue to keep that competitive advantage for a while.
It suggests that cultural (and perhaps social and psychological) change is harder to achieve than the knowledge transfer of technology.
In a way, Japanese was ahead of Europe, using mass produced firearms in warfare earlier than Europe did.
However, after 17th century gun industry declined in Japan, and Japanese gun manufacturing was way behind europe in the beginning of 19th century [0].
But they really picked up the pace after that! Japanese Arisaka bolt-action rifles were the cheap-and-plentiful firearm used in many countries up to ww2. I have one Type-38 from 1905 or so and it sure is still very nice.[1]
Japan-Portugal History - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Portugal_relatio...
Right, I'm connecting the dots, picturing the historical context..
That reminds me how Japanese children are taught in basic school about 黒船, "black ships", as representing first contact with the West.
Black Ships - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ships
This was part of the Age of Discovery, as the Portuguese (chronologically) led the discovery of Africa, Asia, the Americas..
People that reach for this kind of decisions occasionally seem to still have a colonialism point of view, like "they will do as told and we still stay in control", except that isn't how things work and eventually they stand on their own feet and are able to even outperform their "masters".