Analysis Of Dutch Approach To Treat The Social Memory Of Its Colonial Past
The past and the way it is recalled create frameworks and discourses through which the present is grasped and understood. The colonial and imperial heritage shared by most of the globe raises a continued effort to cope with contradictions and to come to terms, especially on Europe’s side. Eight decades since the eviction of the Dutch from Indonesia, Dutch official narratives continue to relinquish their responsibility and to refuse to properly address the nature and effects of the 350 years of Dutch rule in the former Dutch East Indies and, in particular, the nature of Dutch war against Indonesian independence, as it is highlighted by Reza Kartosen-Wong in her “Apologize, recognizer Independence date” article. This essay aims at briefly revising the Dutch approach (or lack thereof) to Dutch imperial history in order to express accordance with the stance taken by Kartosen-Wong of how overlooked the Dutch imperialist character in contemporary Netherlands has been. Furthermore, the German and the British cases will serve to illustrate how these other former imperial powers have been dealing with the social memory of their colonial past, providing similarities and differences with the Dutch case which can ultimately shed light on how to improve the portraying of the past.
A Eurocentric approach to WWII, both to the causes and latter consequences has tended to dominate the Western public’s minds. Celebrating the end of the conflict when the Japanese ultimately succumbed and not when the Germans did pose an important recognition and reminder of the global reaches of the struggle, not only confined to European tragedies. Yet, even such an advance lacks a full recognition of all the sufferings involved. As Kartosen-Wong outlines “…the main Dutch national commemoration on May 4 prioritizes the experiences of World War II in Europe, as does history education in Dutch schools”. Which place does the colonial past hold in post-imperial Netherland’s mind?
According to Remco Raben, apparently it is barely considered a problem that surveys of Dutch history fail to mention the Dutch overseas activities and lack to identify influence of the colonial endeavor on Dutch society and political culture, something which would partly explain the “reluctance” or lack of will to properly address the issue. As Kartosen-Wong reveals, even though there has been a progressively recognition and broadening of issues and victims taken into account in the Dutch memory, as illustrated by the East Indies Commemoration since the 1980’s, there is still a flawed notion of the colonial era and its effects, as the non-existent official apology for colonialism from the Dutch side has ever been made. The enduring Dutch negligence in regard to recognizing the decolonization struggle started earlier than in 1945. The nationalistic movement which developed in Indonesia in the 1930’s was not taken seriously, as this metaphor rightly puts: “little wonder that the decolonization of Indonesia was never discussed in the Netherlands; it would have been like discussing the pros and cons of divorce during the wedding”. Is this lack of recognition something characteristically Dutch? And, why is there such a “resistance” to properly deal with these issues? As Raben points out “the weak integration of metropolitan and imperial histories seems to be characteristic of most post-imperial societies”. In his work, he analyses and compares the British, French and Dutch imperial histories and its developments, pointing out how Dutch historiography could be influenced by the former two. “The presence of the colonies in Dutch society remains elusive and ambiguous. Rewriting imperial history means to ultimately shake the cores of the identity and the legacies of a country, leading to a profound `destabilization of white identities´”. While the direct experience and sufferings of Dutch people during Japanese aggression pave the way for the experience of old colonial subjects to be entwined and considered in Dutch history, it still poses as an insufficient engagement to acknowledging the colonial past. Such a recognition is a progressive, slow and conflictive process, given that a reinterpretation of over three centuries of history and of a country’s self-image are involved. No country is willing to accept the sufferings it has caused and the injustices it has imposed onto other people, especially one that praises its morality over others. The Dutch situation is further complicated by what Gloria Wekker identifies as the existence of deep paradoxes in the Netherlands, where “…Dutch white goodness and Dutch pride in being a gentle, hospitable nation go hand-in-hand with racial oppression and colonial violence”.
From the paradoxes highlighted by Wekker, the Dutch self-image of being an innocent victim of the German occupation during WWII while at the same time Dutch colonies in Indonesia were fighting for their independence and struggling against imperial violence strike as the most important one when trying to understand why the Dutch colonial role has been so overlooked. As both of the works here mentioned by Remco and Wekker show, there is a stream of historians and scholars within the Dutch world that attempt to challenge the orthodox view and understanding of the past. The imperial violence has persistently been ‘neutralized’ either by consciously silencing it, but more often discussing them in apologetic terms whether intentionally or unintentionally, and by prioritizing extremely detailed source study over critical reflection. Consequently, the history of war crimes did not become a common frame of reference in the Netherlands. And, why?
The idealization of history can be seen as dangerous, since it can be applied to other fields other than the colonial past. The “white innocence” fosters a dangerous image propelled by rising far-right groups against everything that it is not considered “Dutch”. This revision would help to challenge internal struggles within the Netherlands due to white nationalism and supremacy, as pointed out by Kartosen-Wong. Given that politicians frequently make use of mythologized understandings of the past to mobilize memory as an instrument of politics in the present, it should be central to properly acknowledge the and integrate Dutch imperialism and its consequences to the public debate. History will continue to be a highly contested field in which power dynamics in a retrospective approach shape the way in which past discourses and developments are told. However, even if the past cannot be rewritten, its interpretation and understanding can and in this case should fundamentally change. Reza Kartosen-Wong’s approach on how to make amends pose as an outset to foster a deeper historical and political revision of the role of Dutch imperialism in contemporary Netherlands. Officially recognizing Aug. 17, 1945 as the Indonesian Independence Day would to a certain extend open a “Pandora’s box” in Dutch history, since much of its flawed approaches to coping with the colonial past would come under scrutiny. A long overdue official apology from the Dutch government for over three centuries of Indonesian undermining would weigh on diplomatic exchanges between the formerly colonized country and their former colonizer. The gesture would be a symbolical recognition and the motor of a transforming force, through which the understandings and coming to terms of Dutch imperialism would not be overlooked. Other actions would be changing the way in which colonial history and legacy is taught at schools, further symbolical or financial reparations of, etc.
To further illustrate approaches on how the Dutch could better treat the social memory of their colonial past, two examples will be presented: the German colonial legacy in Namibia and its recognition and the British ongoing struggle on how to cope with its colonial past. The fist example revolves around claims of Herero and Nama, peoples of today Namibia, who press for recognition and compensation for victims and for damage caused by the colonial policies of the German Empire and the colonization of “German Southwest Africa”, which resulted in the first genocide of the 20th century, where up to 80 000 people died. It was only on the centenary of the slaughter in 2004 that the German government acknowledged, the political and moral guilt of the German colonial politics and asked Namibians for forgiveness. Because of its past, modern Germany cannot allow itself to have the same sense of “self-deception and self-glorification” that other European countries have. In comparison with Britain, France or the Netherlands, Germany’s empire left a relatively small imprint on the history of the globe (what doesn’t in any sort of way invalidate the sufferings of those affected by it). But, modern Germany has made more serious institutional effort to debate its colonial past and engage with former colonies on issues including reparations and formal apologies than these other colonial empires.
The second example centers around Britain’s flawed addressing of its colonial past. British educational and cultural life struggle to deal with a colonial history whose scale, duration and impact far exceeded that of imperial Germany. “The British empire is rarely taught in schools. Public debate rarely gets beyond the clash of assigning guilt. There is no official museum of British history of the kind that Germany supports, let alone a national museum dedicated principally to the imperial past”. It can be said that the same underlining motives behind the Dutch avoidance of the theme exists within the British society. For being deemed too painful there is an inclination to exclude from debate these parts of history, what can lead to, as in the Dutch case, a faulted self-image of to be bragged about, which nurtures far-right political ideologies and longing for “glorious times”.
To conclude, it is important to notice that the way in which colonial history is told does not only impact on the lives of those in the old colonies, but as well in the realities of those in the old metropolis. While all roots of nationalism are somehow mystified, failing to deal with the part played by the imperial powers in contemporary societies continues a partial blindness which has been used as fuel for hurtful and extremist campaigns. History has a very real impact on the present and ultimately on the future. Even if it is acknowledged or not, the colonial past will continue to resonate within the old imperial powers, especially in Europe. It appears as if Britain, as well as the Netherlands, could learn from what the Germans are doing. With this in mind, it should be noted that in regard to the efforts to incorporate and accommodate colonial history, European troubles have been limited when comparing it with the consequences and coming to terms of conflicts in Europe itself.
