G. Oostindie Squaring The Circle Commemorating The VOC After 400 Years

G.
Oostindie
Squaring the circle; Commemorating the VOC after 400 years
In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 159 (2003), no: 1, Leiden, 135-161
This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl
Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

via free access
GERT J. OOSTINDIE
Squaring the circle

Commemorating the VOC after 400 years
In 2002, the Netherlands 'celebrated' the establishment, exactly four centu-

ries before, of the Dutch Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC, East
Indies Company). By pure coincidence, that same year a national monument
in commemoration of the Atlantic slave trade and Dutch Caribbean slavery
- in which the Dutch West Indische Compagnie (WIC, West Indies Company)
was a key player - was inaugurated in Amsterdam. In both the celebration of
the Dutch East Indies Company and the act of repentance regarding its West
Indies counterpart, Queen Beatrix and the then Dutch Prime Minister Wim
Kok were conspicuously present.1
1
The official dates were 20 March and 1 July, respectively. This article was first presented
in November 2002 as a paper at the Erasmushuis in Jakarta and for the Lembaga Adat/
Kebudayaan Toar Lumimuut Masyarakat Minahasa in Tondano. I owe thanks to the audiences
at these occasions for their reactions, to the anonymous readers for the Bijdragen and to several
colleagues who commented on a draft of this article: Taufik Abdullah, Sander Adelaar, Michiel
Baud, Vincent Houben, Adrian B. Lapian, Remco Raben, Merle Ricklefs, Leslie Witz and, at
KITLV, David Henley, Gerrit Knaap, Harry Poeze, Henk Schulte Nordholt, and Roger Tol.
Enriq Hessing and Laura van Deelen of the Stichting Viering 400 jaar VOC kindly shared their
criticism on this paper with me; we agreed to disagree on interpretation.
After completing and circulating my first draft, 1 was presented with two other Dutch
pieces on the VOC celebrations reflecting more or less the same concerns and criticism: Raben
(2002) and Van Stipriaan and Bal (2002). There is a remarkable consensus in these papers and
mine, perhaps underlining that the points made here are all too obvious. A very nuanced
analysis of Dutch and Indonesian interpretations is provided by Lapian (2002).
Peter Rietbergen (2002) provides a different perspective. Weary of 'political correctness'
and a presumed widespread Dutch feeling of guilt about the colonial past, he rightly defends
GERT J. OOSTINDIE is director of the KITLV in Leiden and Professor of Caribbean Studies at
Utrecht University. His research interests are history (particularly slavery and decolonization),
international relations, and ethnicity. He published some twenty books in the Caribbean and
Latin American Studies. His most recent English-language books are (with Inge Klinkers),
Decolonising the Caribbean; Dutch policies in a comparative perspective, Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2003, and the edited volume Facing up to the past; Perspectives on the
commemoration of slaveryfromAfrica, the Americas and Europe, Kingston: Randle/The Hague:
Prince Claus Fund, 2001.

via free access
136 Gert ]. Oostindie
Looking back on the festivities relating to the VOC which spanned over
half a year, one may conclude that in spite of politely voiced objections against
the whole idea of a 'celebration', the festive mood aimed for was maintained
up to the end, in the Netherlands that is. In contrast, official reactions in
Indonesia, once the prime operating area of the VOC, were dismissive, as
were those in South Africa. The response in other states once touched by
the company ranged from indifferent or at best lukewarm (India, China, Sri
Lanka) to moderately interested among the two nations which can usefully
incorporate VOC history in their own narrative of the national past (Taiwan,
Japan). The whole project of a commemoration, let alone celebration, clearly
remained a unilateral Dutch pursuit.
One wonders whether this could, and should, have been otherwise. This
question will be at the heart of my exposition. Behind it looms the larger
question of how nations commemorate their past, somewhere between the
extremes of a self-congratulatory splendid isolation and meaningless politi-
cal correctness.
Nation-building and the representation of the past
The interpretation of the national past is a crucial ingredient in nation-build-

ing, and so is the subsequent education of all citizens in the canonical ver-
sion of this history. History, it has been said, is built upon achievement, and
indeed much of the rhetoric of the national past centres on glorious achieve-
ments, ever so many reasons for chauvinistic pride and evocations to keep
that particular flame alive. Of course, achievement is not all, and in fact just
as in individual lives, so in the trajectory of most nations disillusionment,
disintegration, as well as defeat and humiliation by other forces and nations
may figure. Such experiences need not necessarily undermine the concept
of the nation. Thus, the feeling of past victimization might well be used to
strengthen the sense of community, to foment revanchism or, conversely, to
bequeath the nation with a touch of purity, a vulnerable absence of malice.
Finally, and not very common at least until recently, there is the option of
addressing the nation's past lapses from virtue in moralistic terms allowing
for a national mea culpa - which, incidentally, may rebound full circle to self-
the commemoration as such. Yet in my view, what is at stake is not as much the legitimacy
of 'commemoration', but rather of 'celebration'. Rietbergen seems rather eager to implicitly
downplay problematic aspects of VOC and Dutch colonialism by references to the many faults
committed by others, including the Indonesian rulers of yesterday and today. Very much to the
point is his discussion of the increasingly predominant weight of the leisure industry and the
mass media in all renderings of the past, including this one.

via free access
Squaring the circle 137
congratulatory conclusions on the laudable humbleness of this great nation.

Quite obviously, all of this defining of the nation through the representa-
tion of its past becomes infinitely more complicated once there is a genuine
striving to come to terms across national boundaries on such phenomena as
colonialism or warfare.
How does the Netherlands fit in this picture? As a preliminary note, it
may be useful to remind you that decades of educational reform and weari-
ness of state-sponsored nation-building have not been particularly helpful
to public historical awareness in the first place. Hence what is known and
particularly not known by the general public is not primarily an expression
of political or scholarly decisions on content. Knowledge and awareness of
the national past in Dutch society simply does not run deep. This applies to
a phenomenon such as the VOC as well. With this caveat in mind, the fol-
lowing observations seem pertinent.
Not surprisingly, the forging of a Dutch nation in a long-winding and
at times bloody war of secession from Spain, and the subsequent 'Golden'
seventeenth century in which the emerging Dutch Republic shortly was the
world's first hegemonic power, has long been the favourite epoch in Dutch
historiography. Here there is ample achievement to be celebrated indeed,
ranging from economic prosperity and international political prowess to
cultural bloom and religious tolerance, from remarkable experiments in elite
democratization to the successful integration of large groups of immigrants.
This 'Golden' epoch was to remain a touchstone in the national memory.
While the Netherlands was increasingly brought down to earth as a mere
middle and eventually minor European power, this glorious episode would
provide stuff for pride and inspiration as well as nostalgia up to the present.
The colonial ventures in Asia figured prominently in that reckoning. As Johan
Fabricius (1997:7) had it in his Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe, a 1923-adventure
story on the early Dutch pursuits in Indonesia and still - if perhaps in its
dying days now - a classic boys' book today, the adventures of these 'first
courageous "Masters next to God" who with their valiant crew installed our
authority in the [East] Indies' was definitely an example to emulate.
While this 'Golden Age' produced a colonial empire still extant centu-
ries later, the Netherlands plunged back to the status of a modest middle
power in Europe. The Republic collapsed in the late eighteenth century and
was succeeded after a French interregnum by the present Kingdom of the
Netherlands. The Kingdom managed to stay outside of all European wars
until 1940. Then, the Second World War produced a dividing line in Dutch
national and colonial history, and would at the same time give fresh impetus
to Dutch thinking about the nation's past and present. The German occupa-
tion ended a long period of peace and destroyed the illusion that Dutch neu-
trality would again be respected as it had been throughout the nineteenth

via free access
138 Gert}. Oostindie
century and in the First World War. Five years of Nazi rule resulted in the
deportation and extermination of over one hundred thousand Dutch Jews
and an equal number of casualties and executions among the rest of the
population - roughly equal numbers, but only 35,000 Jews survived the war,
as against the great majority of the total Dutch population of nine million.
Material damage was enormous.
The Dutch government-in-exile in London stood before the impossible
task of not only monitoring the developments in the occupied Netherlands,
but also directing overseas affairs. The Japanese occupation of Indonesia in
1942 was the second devastating blow, even if the Dutch at the time did not
yet foresee that this would be followed by the unilateral and irreversible
declaration of Indonesian independence on 17 August 1945. Only the West
Indian colonies of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles would formally
remain under Dutch rule during the war and long after.
Arguably, the Nazi occupation became the central trope in post-war
Dutch thinking about the nation. In the initial rendering of the war, both
victimhood and heroic resistance were singled out: after the non-aggressive,
neutral Dutch had been ruthlessly violated by the Germans, courageous
nationals had dared to go underground and fight Nazi oppression.2 Only
as time passed was the holocaust of the Jewish population placed more in
the centre of memory, and were more critical questions put forward. After
all, the Nazis had not encountered much resistance against the deportation
of the Jews and actually little tangible protest against their rule in general
- the courage to resist had clearly not been widespread. Gradually, and to a
degree triggered by foreign scholarship, a far less heroic interpretation of the
war years came ahead, and has perhaps already attained canonical status at
least among the educated elites. It has even been argued that much of Dutch
hegemonic rhetoric for relatively lenient migration policies and against xen-
ophobia from the 1970s through the 1990s was inspired not only by a sense
of justice, but also and perhaps even more so by a longing to belatedly make
up for the failure to save the Jews during the war.
All this, of course, does not refrain the general public - particularly during
soccer matches - from indulging in anti-German commonplaces as if 'good'
equalled the Dutch and 'bad' the Germans. In more general terms, one still
observes a tendency towards moralizing in Dutch thinking about its place in
2
This moralizing interpretation of Dutch history during the Nazi occupation was embodied
in the work of the officially designated national historian of this period, Louis de Jong.
Interestingly, the parts on Dutch rule in Indonesia in his 27-volume work were highly critical
of Dutch colonialism, and encountered fierce criticism among repatriates. Parts of his work on
Indonesia have recently been published in English, but only those dealing with the period of the
Japanese occupation. L. de Jong, The collapse of a colonial society; The Dutch in Indonesia during the
Second World War, Leiden: KITLV Press, 2002.

via free access
the world which some interpret as sheer hypocrisy. Indonesians may think
here of former Dutch minister Jan Pronk's heavy criticism on the Indonesian
government after the 1991 killings in East Timor, in the view of the Soeharto
regime a preposterous gesture coming from the mouth of a former colonizer.3
More recent, and in my view more telling examples of ambiguous, perhaps
hypocrite Dutch concerns with morality are the controversies over the cre-
dentials of the father of Maxima Zorreguieta, the chosen bride of the future
Dutch king, and over the failed Dutchbat mission in Srebrenica in former
Yugoslavia.
In the first case, there were doubts about Mr. Zorreguieta's participation
in the military junta of Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s and hence
his, and eventually his daughter's, acceptability to the royal family and
Dutch democracy. Well-taken doubts indeed, yet at times such doubts were
translated into a public discourse which all too easily glossed over the fact
that during the regime, neither politics nor business nor the general public
in the Netherlands had seriously objected to the junta at all.4 Likewise, the
1995 failure of the Dutch UN battalion to fulfil the pledge to protect Bosnian
Muslim refugees in Srebrenica against Serb aggression resulting in the horri-
ble slaughter of 7,500 men was publicly deeply regretted. Yet in the end, and
in spite of strong domestic criticism, until the publication of a very critical
report in 2002 and perhaps even then, the Dutch government continued to
attribute responsibility primarily to the aggressive Serbs, rather than to the
Dutch troops who refrained from military action to defend the Bosnians. The
latter absence of heroism, incidentally, reminds one of the revised version of
Dutch 'resistance' during the Nazi occupation.5
Colonialism in the narrative of the Dutch past
The whole idea of an innocent and freedom-loving Netherlands being vio-

lated by a foreign aggressor, ultimately regaining its foot and indeed its
3
Pronk's position reminds me of the comment of a British reader of a draft of this paper on
Dutch attitudes at large: 'These include on the positive side a sense of responsibility, obligation,
and guilt, and on the negative side a pride and condescension which is often so deeply anchored
as to be wholly unconscious, and to which Indonesians are extremely sensitive'.
4
In his study commissioned by the Dutch government on the subject, Baud (2001:175-9)
argues against a simple transfer of Dutch moral criteria to the Argentine context; yet such
cautious words were quickly lost in the public debates in the Netherlands.
5
Srebrenica; Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a 'safe' area.
Web version Amsterdam: NIOD 2002. Available on the website www.oorlogsdoc.knaw.nl of
the NIOD which investigated the events at the behest of, again, the Dutch government. The
Kok cabinet did resign in reaction to the conclusions of the report and particularly the renewed
public indignation. Yet this seemed related less to the failure in Srebrenica itself than to the way
all of this was handled in The Hague since.

via free access
140 Gert J. Oostindie
habitual pragmatism and equilibrium may well seem preposterous from

other points of view, and particularly from an Indonesian or more generally
postcolonial perspective. I will shortly get back to this. Yet first a couple of
general observations on Dutch colonial history and its place in Dutch public
awareness should be made.
Any rendering of basic facts about Dutch colonialism should begin
with the observation that the Netherlands' Asian exploits were infinitely
more important to the metropolis than its endeavours in the so-called New
World, where the Dutch ended up with nothing but two consolation prizes,
Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. To give an idea of the contrasts
in sheer size, in 1940 Indonesia had some seventy million inhabitants, the
Netherlands almost nine millions. The two Dutch Caribbean colonies taken
together housed a quarter of a million only, virtually all descendants from
former colonizers and particularly African slaves and Indian and Javanese
indentured labourers, all brought there by the Dutch. Indonesia was said
to be the cork that kept the Dutch economy floating, while by that time for
the Caribbean colonies it was mostly the other way around. The prospect of
parting with Indonesia was the more abhorrent to most Dutch politicians, as
this would imply to the Netherlands a humiliating degradation to a minor
European country, one 'with the rank of Denmark'. In contrast, the posses-
sion of two tiny Caribbean territories hardly added to the geopolitical clout
and international status of the metropolis.
An analysis of the cultural dimension of this equation discloses remark-
able paradoxes. While for the Dutch the superiority of their own culture
may have been beyond dispute, there was some genuine appreciation of
elements of Indonesian 'high' culture. Caribbean popular culture in contrast
was dismissed as backwards, Caribbean elite culture as a distorted version
of metropolitan culture at best. While Indonesia did leave many traces in
metropolitan culture and imagination, this was not the case for Caribbean
culture, at least not until the mass migration since the 1970s. In contrast, it
was in the Caribbean rather than in Asia that the Dutch themselves left a last-
ing cultural impact and succeeded in creating populations strongly oriented
towards the metropolis.
It may be argued that the colonial past as such has never figured very
prominently in Dutch thinking about the nation. But to the extent it has, colo-
nial history was long virtually equated with the exploits in Asia and particu-
larly Indonesia both in Dutch historiography and in public awareness. Here a
Eurocentric perspective reigned unchallenged. 'Daar werd wat groots verricht',
roughly, 'Something monumental was achieved there' reigned supreme and
was easily taken all the way to the present form from Jan Pieterszoon Coen's
seventeenth-century claim that something magnificent was being achieved in
the Indies under his reign. It remains fascinating how, even during the war

via free access
and indeed in the directly following years of warfare over Indonesian inde-
pendence, leading Dutch politicians and civil servants continued to reassure
each other that their mission in the colony was far from over, and that they
indeed thought most reasonable Indonesians were ready to admit this.6
In retrospect, it is precisely the failure to draw some obvious parallels
between the German occupation of the Netherlands and the Dutch coloniza-
tion of Indonesia and particularly the refusal to concede independence which
strikes one today - with the unfair benefit of hindsight. Certainly, there is a
world of theoretical and historical difference between Dutch colonialism in
Indonesia and Nazi rule in the Netherlands. Yet if the Dutch emphasized their
own victimhood, what about the Indonesians under their rule, and particu-
larly their post-1945 military actions? And how to interpret the then popular
Dutch equation of Soekarno to the domestic Nazi collaborator Mussert?7
Apparently, not only a lack of realism and appreciation of the strength of a
pan-Indonesian nationalism, but equally an unwillingness to stand one's loss
blinded many Dutch. Though much of this has been changed over the past
decades, one still senses a propensity to downplay the sharp sides of Dutch
colonialism and retain as much as possible of the exoticism and romanticism
attached to this long episode in national history. Outside the ivory tower of
Dutch scholarship, the outright military campaigns of the post-war years
are often still euphemistically designated as 'police actions', war crimes as
'excesses' as if real war crimes were not in the Dutch repertoire, and so on.
6
See for example, Van den Doel 2000. The book Daar werd wat groots verricht was published
in 1941, shortly after the Netherlands had been occupied by the Nazis. It seems likely that the
self-congratulatory tone was not only a rethorical reminder of Coen's earlier claim, but also
served to compensate somewhat for the recent humiliations at home.
7
There is a historical precedent. When in 1913 the Indonesian elites were invited to join in the
festivities over the centenary of the liberation from Napoleon's French rule and the inauguration
of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Indonesian intellectual R.M. Soewardi Soerjaningrat
(1913:16) reacted with a fiercely sarcastic pamphlet, in Indonesian and Dutch, under the telling
title 'If I were a Dutchman,...'. The brunt of his argument was that an Indonesian patriot could
understand Dutch patriotism and thus the urge to celebrate this centenary precisely because he
himself too longed to break away from alien rule - Dutch colonialism, in this case. He closed as
follows: 'No, indeed, if I were a Dutchman, I never would want to celebrate such a jubilee in a
country we rule. First concede freedom to that subjugated people, only then commemorate our
own freedom.' Not surprisingly, the colonial government did not take his sarcastic indignation
lightly. While there was no serious debate over his position, Soewardi was arrested for some
time.
Such chauvinistic myopia remains with us today. In 1998, the Netherlands Antilles and
Aruba, still on a voluntary basis part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, were invited to join
in the celebrations marking the 150th year of the Constitution with its emphasis on individual
rights and liberties. Apparently nobody in The Hague remembered that in 1848,. slavery still
ruled in the Dutch Caribbean colonies. (Of course, slavery at the time was still legal in the Dutch
East Indies as well.)

via free access
So the picture has become far subtler than during the forties and fifties,
yet ambivalence, to say the least, still characterizes Dutch thinking about the
parting with Indonesia. The most striking case in point was given during
Queen Beatrix' visit to the former colony in 1995. All warm and amicable
words, yet the very timing of arrival, days after 17 August rather than shortly
before as Jakarta had suggested, implied no explicit acknowledgement of
1945 rather than 1949 as the starting point of the Indonesian Republic.8
Lately, in the Netherlands, the demise of colonialism in Indonesia has mainly
been a subject of debate between the state and repatriates, whose history
in the Netherlands has been extensively documented by now (Bossenbroek
2001; Willems 2001). With one significant exception, these debates have only
indirectly to do with Indonesia itself. The weight of the argument now is
about Dutch responsibility for the misfortunes of Dutch citizens in the
colony under the Japanese occupation and immediately after. Thus, often
angry debates on The Hague's supposedly sluggish stance vis-a-vis Tokyo
when it comes to demanding apologies and reparations; on reparations for
losses incurred during the Japanese occupation and the subsequent warfare;
on the reputedly cold welcome in the metropolis after repatriation, etcetera.
All important issues liable to provoke tense emotions, yet hardly issues of
importance to Indonesians today.
The only issue in current Dutch debates which directly links the course
of the decolonization process half a century ago to the contemporary state
of affairs in both Indonesia and the Netherlands concerns the Moluccas. It is
actually on this issue that The Hague has frequently felt itself torn between
the diplomatic principle of non-interference and the pressure from Moluccan
Dutchmen at home worrying about violence in their ancestors' islands. One
observes that, ever since the spectacular and violent actions by militant
Moluccan youth in the 1970s, Dutch priorities here have been with the careful
handling of a domestic minority problem, not with exerting political pressure
on Jakarta.
What about the awareness of Dutch colonialism in the West Indies? It
seems a long history of glossing over these chapters has recently come to an
end. Mirroring their minor significance to the metropolis, for centuries the
Caribbean colonies were virtually non-existent in Dutch historiography and
public awareness. This only started to change in the last couple of decades,
the major reason of course being the mass migration from Suriname and next
also the Antilles to the Netherlands.9 The exodus not only alerted the Dutch
8
The conflict over New Guinea, in retrospect rather absurd, only served to worsen the
bilateral relations in 1949-1962 and beyond. Here the prevailing Dutch version still seems to be
that the blame is mainly with Indonesia, which after all failed to heed United Nations arbitrage.
On Queen Beatrix' visit, see Houben (1997, 2000).
9
On Dutch Caribbean decolonization, including the exodus to the Netherlands, see
Oostindie and Klinkers 2003.

via free access
public to the existence of these Dutch creations in the Caribbean, but gradu-
ally also produced an outspoken Caribbean interest group perfectly capable
to bring its own versions of history to the spotlight. Hence within the last
five years, the transatlantic slave trade and slavery - neglected in history text
books, silenced in public awareness - were transformed from a Caribbean
j'accuse to a Dutch mea culpa and became canonized as the single defining phe-
nomenon in the contemporary interpretation of Dutch West Indian history.
This rare mea culpa version of history was literally given shape with the inau-
guration on 1 July 2002 of a monument in commemoration of slavery - almost
140 years after the official abolition of slavery in the Dutch West Indies, 1 July
1863. A worthy symbolic gesture indeed. One only hopes it will not nourish
Dutch feelings of being an exemplary and thus leading self-critical nation.
Celebrating the VOC
Thus, the history of the Dutch West Indies Company is now being canonized
under the header 'something gruesome was achieved there'. This is an aston-
ishing contrast to the traditional version of Dutch history in the territory of
its counterpart the East Indies Company, where 'something monumental was
achieved' through which indeed the Netherlands became far more important
than its own sheer size would have led one to expect.
Serious scholarship today tends to have a sound disliking of moralizing
and certainly of uncritically glorifying national exploits. Indeed it is difficult
to find modern Dutch scholarly work still uncritically singing the praise of
Dutch colonialism in Indonesia and particularly of the VOC. There might
be little inclination to produce a similar mea culpa interpretation of colonial
rule as has overnight become the official norm for West Indian history, yet
uncritical chauvinist analysis has definitely gone out of fashion during the
last decades. In this context, as I will try to demonstrate, the whole concept
of a 'celebration of 400 years VOC' seems a remarkable regression, yet a
regression that may stimulate potentially refreshing debates on the margins
of political correctness.10
First, some facts. Virtually all activities around the VOC during 2002
were directly organized, financially supported or coordinated by the foun-
dation Celebration 400 years VOC. Not a government agency as such, the
foundation's overall budget of some 4.5 million Euros was mainly provided
by the Dutch government and to a lesser extent by major Dutch companies
active in Asia. President of the board was a Member of Parliament for one of
the then coalition parties; the committee of recommendation comprised the
10
For a criticism of moralizing in recent Dutch scholarship of colonialism and decolonization,
see De Beus 2001 and Meijer 1995.

via free access
presidents of the two Chambers of Dutch parliament, the Dutch National

Bank and the Dutch employers' organization. At the official opening of the
celebrations, Queen Beatrix, Crown Prince Willem Alexander, Prime Minister
Wim Kok and many of his cabinet only added to the feeling that 'tout le The
Hague' was happily part of the celebratory scene.
In the Preface to the brochure presenting the foundation's objectives
and the program for the year, its president, parliamentarian Enriq Hessing
starts of on a rather cautionary tone. 'On 20 March 1602 the Unified East
Indies Company (VOC) was established. This marks the beginning of the
worldwide orientation of the Netherlands and a period of great economic
and cultural flourishing. In 2002, this is 400 years ago. There is much interest
to celebrate this in a festive way. Many activities are being organized in
diverse sectors of society, such as government, the business community,
and the educational system, the arts and sciences. The resulting program
mirrors the significance the VOC has had for the Netherlands. This comprises
international cooperation, interest in other cultures, entrepreneurialism,
craftsmanship and innovation. The significance of these characteristics lies
not only in the past, but also in the present and future. The brochure presents
an overview of the activities that will take place in the Netherlands in 2002.
It has become a richly varied program with elements of looking back and
forward, contemplation, inspiration and cooperation. The shadow sides of
the VOC will also be dealt with.' (Viering 2002:5.)
Under the title 'What will we be celebrating?' the following page provides
further explanation. Emphasis will be on the early period, ranging from 1595,
the year of the first Dutch expedition to Asia, to 1620. The achievements of
this early past will be celebrated: the uniting of the various previously com-
peting Dutch maritime companies, the accomplishments of maritime tech-
nology, the impact of the opening up of new trade networks for Dutch society
at large. Again, passing reference is made to the 'shadow sides' which will
'obviously not be celebrated' but will be dealt with in education, scholarly
meetings, exhibitions, and so on. As a closing remark, the significance of the
VOC is located not simply in the past, but equally in the present and future.
'Hence within the framework of the celebration we will expressly emphasize
the importance of international co-operation, entrepreneurialism, craftsman-
ship and innovation for the future of the Netherlands' (Viering 2002:7).
Quite clearly, not simply pride in a glorious past but equally the intention
to seize this opportunity to further trade with Asia and hence in a sense emu-
late the early successes of the VOC was a leading motive behind the whole
celebratory effort. In fact, from personal experience I may state that as late
as early 2001, the whole concept of 'shadow sides' was apparently new or at
least not particularly welcome to the organizing foundation. Its board did
since react open-mindedly to the urge not to turn a blind eye to the less than

via free access
glorious pages of this history, but not for a moment considered re-baptizing
its own efforts to a more neutral commemoration rather than celebration.
Late in 2001, the foundation's president Hessing still thought the celebration
would not be controversial, particularly as this was a Dutch festivity, which
would certainly not be imposed on other countries. Moreover, misgivings
regarding a 'fashionable pondering over national guilt' lingered within the
foundation.11 And in fact, the official commemoration on 20 March 2002 in
the Ridderzaal, the same location where the VOC had been established four
centuries before, was at least in intention as much solemn as celebratory, and
certainly not an exercise in national moral questioning. The same goes for the
more scholarly commemoration of the VOC in a series of four lectures pre-
sented to and subsequently published by Dutch parliament in a beautifully
produced book under the telling title Roemrucht verleden, (Illustrious past).12
Meanwhile, schools were being provided by educational materials fully
in tune with the celebratory intention, even if some attention was paid to
the links between the early VOC exploits, violence and colonialism. Major
museums as well as tiny ones all over the country mounted a vast array
of exhibitions on the VOC, its exploits and the implications of Dutch-Asian
trade for the metropolis. Stacks of books were being reprinted and published
emphasizing anew the glory of an epoch that forever changed the face not
only of the Netherlands, but of all countries involved.
Somewhat in the margins of these celebratory exercises, there were occa-
sional academic conferences and public debates - in which participating
11
NRC Handelsblad, 21-12-2001. At the request of and financed by the Stichting 400 jaar
VOC, the KITLV hosted an information centre and website on the VOC. In the preliminary
discussions, the foundation's leadership seemed slightly taken aback by our suggestion to
broaden the perspective beyond the celebratory aspect. This attitude changed in the sense
that the foundation eventually even subsidized debates organized both by the KITLV and by a
fiercely anti-celebration platform in the spring of 2002. By that time, the foundation's president
Hessing had become well versed in acknowledging the 'shadow sides' as well.
12
De Bruijn et al. 2002. In the Preface to the book P.J. Biesheuvel, chair of the parliamentarian
committee on the VOC, carefully writes of 'commemoration' rather than 'celebration'. The three
scholars J.R. de Bruijn, H. den Heijer and F. Gaastra contributing to the book discuss VOC history
in 'neutral' terms, that is without mentioning 'shadow sides' whether as core business of the
company or as excess. The closing chapter by prominent Dutch banker (and former academic)
Alexander H.G. Rinnooy Kan, 'De VOC, een multinational avant la lettre' (De Bruijn et al. 2002:
71-85) does address such questions. Alongside praise for the VOC for being a vanguard capitalist
enterprise, a pioneering innovator, high tech multinational, etcetera, he also emphasizes the
company's lack of responsible behaviour. He then mentions violence and the 'murderous actions
of Jan Pietersz. Coen'. 'Respect or even consideration for the fate of the inhabitants or nature was
often lacking. [...] These dark sides of the VOC obviously do cast a shadow over the celebration
of 400 years of the VOC His conclusion is only conditionally positive: there is every reason for
admiration for the VOC's accomplishments and the example set for the future, but one cannot
escape the fact that its strategies 'do not dovetail in all respects with our contemporary, ethical
criteria' (De Bruijn et al. 2002:82-3).

via free access
historians and other intellectuals usually tended to criticize the concept of

celebration - and some demonstrations, mainly organized and supported by
Dutchmen of Moluccan backgrounds.13 The media lent a sympathetic ear to
the objections, and in fact many a newspaper devoted articles to the protests
and commented against the celebratory mood of the whole endeavour. Yet
what in the end prevailed was not the bitter (mainly to others) but rather the
sweet (mainly to the Dutch). And so in my files I have the most diverse tokens
of celebration, ranging from a 'VOC-arrangement' of the leading department
store the Bijenkorf, the arrival from Sydney and subsequent tour through the
Netherlands of the Duyfken, a replica of one of the first Dutch ships ever to
reach as far as Indonesia and the first to make it to Australia, concerts and
theatre performances inspired by the VOC and its times, and so forth.
Now should all of this bother us? Perhaps much depends on whom we
consider to be.'us'. I will come back to this. But first let me turn to the ques-
tion how the whole concept of the celebration was received outside of the
Netherlands, and particularly in Indonesia.
An Indonesian perspective
Again a preliminary statement is useful. While the Dutch have dominated

West Indian history, this is hardly true for the former East Indies. Perhaps
therefore the WIC is a far more delicate subject in the former Caribbean colo-
nies than the VOC will ever be in Indonesia. So there is room for a lighter
touch here. In fact, the Jakarta radio station Delta commented sarcastically
rather than angry that as the Dutch soccer team had failed to qualify for the
2002 World Championships in Seoul and Tokyo, the Dutch apparently needed
something else to feel proud of - and had therefore opted for celebrating the
VOC instead.14 Likewise, a bar and restaurant called the 'VOC/Vereenigde
Oost-Indische Compagnie' was established in Jakarta some years ago without
any protest. Very few Indonesians would know what 'VOC' once meant in
the first place. Yet the project to establish a restaurant called the 'WIC/West-
Indische Compagnie' in the former Dutch colony of Curasao - still a part of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands today - was cancelled because of fierce local
protest. The restaurant is there to be sure, but the name was changed in order
not to give offence.15
13
Keppy 2001:8-9. Also www.blimbing.nl and www.dlm.org/voc. Newspapers covered the
protests against the welcoming of the Duyfken, protests which however were hardly radical.
14
Personal communication Professor Taufik Abdullah, 14-10-2002.
15
This observation underlines the remarks made by Van Stipriaan and Bal (2002) who
refer in this context to the WIC cafe only, without having had previous knowledge of its VOC
counterpart.

via free access
But obviously we need to dig deeper. In a recently published collection of

essays, Indonesian historiography, the renowned Professor Sartono Kartodirdjo,
a dean of his country's historians, emphasizes time and again the importance
of the uncovering, re-interpretation and dissemination of national history for
the process of nation building. 'National history', he writes, 'functioning as
"the memory" of a nation is of primary importance to preserve its identity
and personality' (Sartono Kartodirdjo 2001:63). Throughout the book, based
on essays initially written in the 1990s, just prior to the breakdown of the
Orde Baru, one also senses the importance he attributes to history as a nar-
rative to counter centrifugal tendencies within the Indonesian state. Sartono
emphatically underlines the need for a nationalist, Indonesia-centric histori-
ography which should not fall into the trap of jingoism and chauvinism. For
him, writing national history 'is in actual fact nothing but a form of legiti-
mizing the present existence of the Indonesian people as a nation' (Sartono
Kartodirdjo 2001:15).
Throughout Indonesian historiography, we find harsh statements regarding
the colonial period, during which 'the natives were deprived not only of their
human dignity but also of their natural identity'. Thus, by 1945, '[h]aving
lived under colonial rule for more than two centuries, the Indonesian peo-
ples had been negated and denied a dignified existence on their native soil.
Through being oppressed and underprivileged, they had lost their identity.'16
In the post-independence pursuit of identity and an appropriate national his-
tory, Sartono writes, 'the colonial historiography became quite obsolete'. He
in fact approvingly quotes the Dutch economic historian Van Leur who since
the 1930s and particularly in his pioneering Indonesian trade and society had
criticized colonial historiography as 'observed from the deck of the ship, the
ramparts of the fortress, the high galley of the trading house'. In his own
words again, it would be 'senseless to start the modern period in Indonesian
history with the arrival of the first Dutch ships at the harbour of Banten'
(Sartono Kartodirdjo 2001:26, 31, 69; Van Leur 1955).
Clearly the perspective from which history, and in this particular case the
early history of the VOC in Indonesia, is recounted is a highly sensitive one.
In a survey of 'writings dealing with various kinds of struggles against the
colonial ruler', Sartono (2001:26) concludes that 'the abundance of this genre
of history bears witness to the urgent need to restore the nation's dignity
and personality, which was negated for so long during colonial domination'.
Once we understand this perspective, it comes as no surprise that official
16
Sartono Kartodirdjo 2001:55, 67 respectively. The 'more than two centuries' refer to the
post-VOC Tax Neerlandica period (1800-1942)' (Sartono Kartodirdjo 2001:81). Yet throughout
the book Sartono emphasizes the continuities from the VOC period to the Pax Neerlandica
period.

via free access
Indonesian reactions to the whole concept of a celebration of the VOC ranged

from suspicious to, eventually, utterly dismissive. No matter how often the
Dutch organizing foundation emphasized that it was only celebrating the
pioneering first decades, certainly not the later colonial state, Jakarta dem-
onstrated little appreciation of such subtleties. As 20 March was nearing, the
Indonesian ambassador to the Netherlands, Abdul Irsan, increasingly dis-
approved in public of the whole celebratory concept, squarely denouncing
the advent of the VOC as the start of colonialism in Indonesian. Of course,
he said, Indonesia could not accept the invitation 'to celebrate its own
colonisation'.17 His embassy actually published a Dutch-language booklet
on the VOC that in no uncertain terms characterized the company as the
beginnings of a colonization which had oppressed the Indonesians for cen-
turies. Yet unfortunately, few of the contributions to this book demonstrates
a willingness to venture beyond VOC bashing and an uneven criticism of
Dutch colonialism.18 Incidentally, as early as 1930 Soekarno (1931:15) had
denounced the VOC in similar terms.19
Meanwhile, in Indonesia there were attempts to mobilize for protests not
only against the VOC celebrations, but also against subsequent phases of
colonialism and particularly Dutch warfare in 1945-1949. The rather radi-
cal messages published on the Internet quoted among other sources various
Dutch newspapers, thus suggesting interesting links within a transnational
Indonesian community. Here we find fierce criticism not only of Dutch colo-
nialism ('they stole our riches, enslaved the oppressed people and committed
massive, cruel, inhuman slaughters'), but equally of Dutch hypocrisy: while
the Dutch, so the message reads, are celebrating the VOC which wrought
havoc on the Indonesian people, they still condemn the Germans for the
Nazi occupation. Yet really, writes Batara Hutagalung, the Indonesian peo-
ple should demand apologies from the Dutch for colonialism with all of its
violations of human rights.20
Much to Dutch embarrassment, the Indonesian government in the end
decided to boycott the official celebrations in the Netherlands, and instructed
its embassies not to participate in any of the celebratory activities whatsoever.
The diplomatic game was played with some inconsistency though. Declining
17
Andryanto and Maryasno (2001:117-9) and various interviews in the Dutch media. While
praising the generally good relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, Abdul Irsan
actually spoke of a few remaining 'pebblestones or psychological obstacles resulting from the
earlier history'.
18
De V.O.C. in de lndonesische archipel: handeldrijven en koloniseren. Gepubliceerd door de
Ambassade van de Republiek Indonesia, Den Haag. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka (Persero), 2002.
19
'Greed for gain was the essence of the VOC in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
greed for gain [was] the cause of the race for colonial possessions in the nineteenth century, after
modern capitalism was established in Europe and America.'.
20
' A r o g a n s i b e k a s penjajah', batara@cabi.net.id, M a r c h 2002.

via free access
the invitation accepted earlier at the last minute, the Indonesian ambassador
to The Hague was conspicuously absent at the celebration in the Ridderzaal
on 20 March. Yet one member of the Indonesian cabinet was present (though
not in an official capacity), and by delivering a speech helped to soften the by
then inescapable conclusion that this was a one-sided Dutch celebration with
colonial overtones. In his speech Minister Kwik Kian Gie greeted the Queen,
the Prime-Minister and the many other high-placed persons on behalf of
his President Megawati Sukarnoputri, thus symbolically undermining the
'boycott'. At the same time he did not spare his audience his conclusion
that while the VOC may have introduced important innovations to Asia
and particularly Indonesia, it also presented the first phase of an oppressive
colonial state which for centuries had refused Indonesians the right to shape
their own destiny.21 The same week, the Indonesian Ministry of Culture and
Tourism held a seminar during which renowned historians such as Anhar
Gonggong and R.Z. Leirissa voiced similar opinions.22
By then South Africa too had decided not to participate in any of the VOC
celebrations. Inevitably, the establishment of the VOC 400 years ago and the
landing of Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape and its subsequent colonization
350 years ago are seen there as part and parcel of the creation of a colonial
state which reached its nadir under the apartheid system - again, little room
for a celebration and mainly disinterest: 'There has been a hush or even a
silence'.23 In a sense, then, only those Asian countries which are in the less
compromising position to regard the VOC as a mere passer-by in a distant
past have demonstrated, even if no positive engagement, at least less qualms
over this quintessentially Dutch effort at celebration.24
21
Speech Kwik Kian Gie, The Hague, Ridderzaal, 20-3-2002. See also virtually all Dutch
newspapers of that week for coverage and criticism of the issues at stake.
22
N R C Handelsblad, 23-3-2002.
23
The Dutch Embassy in South Africa actually requested local historians to conduct a survey
regarding prevailing opinions - if any - in the country regarding the VOC and Van Riebeeck.
This survey eventually conducted in Cape Town among both specialists and a wider public
confirmed the little interest in the VOC. Van Riebeeck commands slightly more attention but
(much in contrast to the celebrations in 1952 under the apartheid system) little sympathy. See
Leslie Witz with Mbulelo Mrubata, 'An opportunity or a problem? A survey of perceptions of
the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and Jan Van Riebeeck in contemporary South Africa'
[unpublished paper commissioned by the Dutch Embassy to South Africa]. The paper opens
with the line 'There has been a hush or even a silence'. Conversation with Witz, 10 September
2002. See also Worden 2001:48-54. E-mail communication by Worden to the author, 8-8-2002.
NRC Handelsblad, 4-4-2002.
24
My conclusion, partly based on information provided by the relevant Dutch embassies.
Reports from both India (in spite of the activities of a Dutch-sponsored foundation '1602-2002.
400 Years Indo-Dutch Partnership/Sharing the Future') and Japan testify to very little interest
in the VOC jubilee. See also the series of impressions published in early 2002 regarding the
legacies and commemoration of the VOC in NRC Handelsblad: India (27-1-2002), Jakarta (23-3-
2002), Malakka (29-3-2002), South Africa (4-4-2002), and China (12-4-2002).

via free access
Naivete, arrogance and diplomacy
Looking back, one cannot escape the conclusion that the effort to celebrate
the VOC as a precursor of innovative entrepreneurship was bound to clash,
not only with critical groups in the Netherlands itself, but particularly with
the Asian and African countries involved. These clashes were never violent,
particularly because of the reticence among the contesters. Anyway, the
apparent insufficient anticipation of the ill feelings encountered testifies to a
mixture of naivete, perhaps fuelled by Eurocentric arrogance, and most cer-
tainly to a lack of diplomatic tact. This comes the more as a surprise bearing
in mind that the concept of celebrating was partly inspired by the longing
to engage in public relations in favour of the contemporary Dutch heirs to
'the world's first ever multinational company'. Irony has it that while the
official emphasis was on early Dutch internationalism, the actual 'celebra-
tions' reflected contemporary parochialism instead. As a Dutch diplomat
confidentially remarked, 'The way the Netherlands has handled the whole
VOC thing begs many questions about empathy'. Leading newspapers
expressed such misgivings in their editorials as well.25
Interestingly, the Dutch government itself started to cautiously disengage
itself from the concept of a celebration. During a visit to Indonesia in late
2001, Dutch State Secretary for Culture Rick van der Ploeg already alluded to
the shadow sides of the VOC history, stating that 'many of the beautiful canal
houses of Amsterdam were built from the wealth of this part of the world'.26
By early 2002, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs advised its embassies
not to participate in 'celebrations' of the VOC. In fact, under the title 'Forum
Dialog Indonesia Belanda', the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta co-organized joint
Indonesian-Dutch seminars in which the VOC and subsequent colonial histo-
ry was the subject of historical analysis as well as criticism, also by the Dutch
participants. Thus in September 2002, a two-day seminar on the VOC was held
in Jakarta by an interesting combination of parties: the National Committee
for the Defense of the Dignity of the Indonesian People, an organization with
an explicit and radical anti-colonial programme, the Indonesian Society of
Historians, and the Dutch Embassy which also provided financial means.
25
R a b e n 2002. O n t h e e v e of t h e s o l e m n c o m m e m o r a t i o n in t h e R i d d e r z a a l , t h e major leftist
n e w s p a p e r , de Volkskrant (19-3-2002), s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e D u t c h h a d a p p a r e n t l y said farewell to
a period in which the colonial past could only be spoken of with shame. That the resulting tone
of celebration had entailed the Indonesian refusal to participate was only logical, the newspaper
commented, and a stain on the whole project. The liberal NRC Handelsblad (19-3-2002) likewise
deplored the absence of Indonesia, the more so 'as the VOC has meant a lot to Indonesia as
well'. Nevertheless it reminded its readership of the context of those early VOC endeavours, in
which the trade in spices was linked to 'robbery, murder, repression, war, cruelty against native
populations and indifference to its own personnel'.
26
Q u o t e d in The Jakarta Post, 10-11-2001.

via free access
The stated objective of the two-day seminar was a critical evaluation of the
VOC, as its title suggests: 'The Two Faces of the World's First Multinational
Company'. 'Celebration' clearly was not the flavour of the day.27
In a sense, then, one might be inclined to conclude that the whole project
was simply not well thought-out at its origins in The Hague. Yet this is too
easy. At the same time the VOC celebrations were being organized, the Dutch
government was expressing its 'deep remorse' for the nation's involvement
in the transatlantic slave trade and slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and pre-
paring for the inauguration of a monument to commemorate this disgraceful
past.28 Apparently there was a strong Caribbean pressure for and no longer
any pressing objections against a thorough revision of the place of the West
Indies Company in Dutch history.
Why this contrast to the VOC? First, I would suggest, because the political
clout of the Caribbean community in the Netherlands has increased consider-
ably in the past decades, and Dutch politics has learned to take this seriously.
This includes the recognition that this colonialism was indeed part and par-
cel of the Dutch national history. In contrast to this rather strong Caribbean
representation, the political voice of Dutch people of Indonesian descent is
divided and moreover less concerned with the distant past. Two issues have
drawn most public attention over the years. This refers first to the position
of Moluccans in the Netherlands and their links to their relatives and islands
of origin in Indonesia. The second issue has been more conspicuous and
concerns the repercussions of the Japanese occupation and the 1945-1949
warfare for individuals and families who eventually decided to settle in the
Netherlands, and for the military who fought in vain to break Indonesian
nationalism. Heated debates on these issues spurred by militant Moluccans
and Dutch veterans have been going on for decades and actually resulted in
official Dutch regrets to those involved in the Netherlands, again monuments
and commemorating institutions, and financial compensation. Ironically, in a
sense much of the criticism the Dutch government encountered during these
debates referred not so much to its colonialism, but rather to its perceived
subsequent 'failure' to protect the interests of the parties involved vis-a-vis
the Indonesian Republic. This context, in understatement, is not precisely
conducive to a critical reappraisal of Dutch colonialism.
27
Written report on the seminar by the Dutch Embassy, as well as personal observations by
one of the participants, Gerrit Knaap, communicated to the author on 14-10-2002.
28
O o s t i n d i e 2001. T h e f o r m u l a t i o n of ' d e e p r e m o r s e ' w a s first e x p r e s s e d b y M i n i s t e r Van
Boxtel at t h e U N - c o n f e r e n c e a g a i n s t racism in D u r b a n , S o u t h Africa, in t h e s u m m e r of 2001. T h e
same words were expressed again by him at the inauguration of the monument in Amsterdam,
on 1 July 2002. In April 2002, Crown Prince Willem Alexander used very similar words on his
official visit to Ghana, once a crucial Dutch colony in the system of the Atlantic slave trade.

via free access
There is a second explanation, which brings us back to the earlier remind-

er that Dutch colonialism in Asia and its legacies were far more important to
the metropolis than its exploits in the Americas. In a sense, there is not much
to lose in acknowledging the inescapable fact that Dutch Atlantic history was
dominated by crass exploitation through the slave trade, slavery and next
Asian indentured labour. Few ever thought of the Caribbean as a veritable
lieu de memoire for Dutch history; there was mainly silence in the historical
representation. Now that the silence has been shattered, not that much is
lost in speaking of 'deep remorse'. One feels no real objections to speak out
against these long-past crimes against humanity committed by ancestors
long since passed away and forgotten. A cynic might even conclude that pay-
ing for a monument in commemoration of slavery even serves as a form of
moral absolution for the Dutch and damage control towards angry descend-
ants of African slaves.
The contrast to the Dutch representation of its role in Asia, and particu-
larly Indonesia, is striking. Evidently, the concept of 'Daar iverd wat groots
verricht' has become both obsolete and politically incorrect, even if it seems
to have been making something of a comeback.29 Yet there is the fact that the
Netherlands, a rather small country with limited natural resources, did have
an impact in Asia, did play a vanguard role with their multinational VOC in
sense out of proportion with its own modest scale. This statement lends itself
to scholarly corroboration detached of moral and political observations, and
deep down the unrealistic longing to convince others of the desirability to
separate the two is at the heart of the celebration project. Naive as the hopes
may have been to convince Asians of this, much of the festivities may indeed
have helped to convince Dutch audiences of the accomplishments of their
VOC, which once aptly carried the epitaph 'the praiseworthy company'.
Most effort has indeed been invested in that endeavour, and one senses
that the urge to talk about the 'shadow sides' has been shallow as long as one
thought of domestic consumption. Thus in the glossy magazine distributed
in the public relations campaign, the organizing foundation's president Enriq
Hessing's preface neatly skips over the passage on 'shadow sides' included
in the official brochure. Likewise, in his Preface to - in itself reasonably
balanced - educational materials on the VOC and its legacies, then Minister
of Education Loek Hermans chooses to stress innovation and the exploring
of new horizons, rather than engaging in debates on colonialism.30 While
29
Ruud Spruit, director of one of the participating museums, actually voiced his amazement
over the apparent turn in the Dutch perspective. For years, he maintained, exhibitions on the
VOC were seen with distrust and were reacted upon with shame and condemnations, as the
company was seen as nothing but a ruthless instrument of exploitation. Now, suddenly, the VOC
was en vogue again. NRC Handelsblad, 29-3-2002.
30 Weijers 2002:3; see also G r e v e n a n d Verschuren 2001.

via free access
all Dutch publications emphasize the opening up of new trade routes,

there is far less if any attention to the disruption of extant intra-Asian ones
through the imposition of monopolies. And while most of the scholars who
published widely read general introductions to the VOC or organized the
major exhibitions in leading museums have one time or another underlined
the need for a balanced representation of this past, their own work presented
during this jubilee mainly uses the celebratory registers as well.
Is this an exaggeration? I do not think so, as a couple of examples may
illustrate. What of the treatment of, for instance, slavery under the VOC?
The slave trade from neighbouring regions, India and even as far as eastern
Africa to Indonesia, to a large extent in the company's portfolio, may have
been in the order of half a million people, incidentally about the same as the
number of Africans bought and traded away to the Americas by the Dutch.
In Indonesia, slavery was not a dominant mode of labour, except for major
VOC cities such as Batavia and a plantation area such as Banda. In the late
seventeenth century, slaves formed roughly half of the populations of Batavia,
present-day Jakarta, and Banda. Yet the 'special jubilee edition' of Femme
Gaastra's Geschiedenis van de VOC, no doubt the best and indeed leading
introduction to the company, devotes no more than a passing paragraph and
table to the subject. The subject is simply glossed over in De kleurrijke wereld
van de VOC, the 'National Jubilee Book' accompanying the most prominent
exhibition on the VOC - this time opened by the Crown Prince - co-hosted
by the maritime museums of Amsterdam and Rotterdam.31
What, then, of the genocide or forced depopulation in 1621 of the Banda
Islands under Jan Pieterszoon Coen, who wanted to guarantee a steady sup-
ply of nutmeg? Gaastra devotes a passing paragraph to this episode, stating
that the 'gruesome consequences of these action' are 'well-known', yet not
elaborating this theme. De kleurrijke wereld is more outspoken, and qualifies
the occurrences in Banda as the largest massacre in the history of the VOC,
and indeed Coen himself as the 'butcher of Banda' and 'a symbol of every-
31
Gaastra 2002:94; Akveld and Jacobs 2002. For figures on slavery in Indonesia, see Knaap
1995:193-206. See also Boomgaard (forthcoming). A pioneering study on slavery in Southeast
Asia is Reid 1983.
There are obvious contrasts between slavery in the East and the West Indies, contrasts
with just as evident implications for contemporary legacies and commemorations. Particularly
relevant is the fact that slavery in the Americas was racially defined and polarized, while for
Asia no such clear-cut distinctions can be made. See also Oostindie 2001.
It is probably only logical that Van Stipriaan, like me a scholar with expertise in slavery in
the Americas and particularly the Dutch Caribbean colonies and likewise engaged in the debate
on a monument in commemoration of slavery in the Netherlands, would also be struck by these
contrasts. Required to give his comments, with colleague Ellen Bal, on the VOC celebrations,
their paper arrives at the same conclusions regarding the contemporary Dutch handling of
slavery in 'East' and 'West', and even at the same rough estimate of half a million slaves in both
parts of the empire (Van Stipriaan and Bal 2002).

via free access
thing that was brutish, bad and wrong with the company'. Indeed, in press
interviews Els Jacobs, one of the two editors of the book and curator of the
exhibition, stresses the need to find a 'good mix' in the presentation of facts
about the VOC. At the opening of the exhibition, Jacobs again mentioned
occasional 'brute violence' exercised by the VOC, while the Amsterdam
Maritime Museum's director Willem Bijleveld pleaded for an even-handed
interpretation of the past, neither celebratory nor condemning. Yet the exhibi-
tion itself does not present anything but nice objects, and indeed a wonderful
'colourful world' of trade on an equal footing rather than one of exchanges
at gunpoint.32
Finally, what about the slaughter of perhaps as many as 10,000 Chinese in
and around Jakarta in 1740? Gaastra has only one passing reference to 'the
notorious Chinese massacre', without providing any figures or explanation.
De kleurrijke wereld does not mention this episode at all.33 One may also ask
broader questions, such as whether the link between the VOC and subsequent
colonialism is discussed in any depth or the question whether violence should
be defined as excess or rather the quintessence of VOC rule. One seldom find
such questions raised, let alone answered in these books aiming at a broader,
not primarily scholarly Dutch audience.34 Much less would such questions
surface at all during the many explicitly festive occasions organized for an
again broader audience. In the Netherlands, it was only in one scholarly con-
gress and two debates that such questions obtained centre stage.35
Small wonder, then, that in the Netherlands celebration has remained the
flavour of the VOC year. This applies also to the last and one of the most
spectacular exhibitions, 'De Nederlandse ontmoeting met Azie 1600-1950'
(The Dutch Encounter with Asia 1600-1950) opened in October 2002 by
the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. On reading the beautiful catalogue to the
exhibition, one senses that its editor and authors - all renowned specialists
- have reflected on the criticism voiced regarding a celebration of the VOC.
Thus the very Preface mentions violence and slavery and the continuity from
32
Gaastra 2002:45; Akveld a n d Jacobs 2002:113; de Volkskrant 20-3-2002. Speeches at t h e
o p e n i n g of t h e exhibition, A m s t e r d a m Maritime M u s e u m , 15-3-2002.
33
Gaastra 2002:62; A k v e l d a n d Jacobs 2002. See also Dros 2002:479-85.
34
With d u e hesitation I m e n t i o n t h e V O C website h o s t e d b y m y o w n institution, t h e KITLV.
This website, sponsored but not controlled or censored in any way by the 'Stichting viering
400 jaar VOC does provide some more information on Jan Pieterszoon Coen, slavery etc. It
does not discuss wider questions of colonialism and violence. See www. kitlv.nl and www.voc-
kenniscentrum.nl.
35
O n t h e basis of this congress, KITLV historian Gerrit K n a a p d i d co-edit a collection of
essays in which precisely the role of the VOC as a military and naval power is emphasized. The
collection contains a balanced overview by Van Goor (2002:9-33) of Dutch historiography on the
VOC which demonstrates that certainly not all modern Dutch scholarship has painted a rosy
picture of the VOC.

via free access
VOC to the subsequent colonial period. Indeed, this is the only exhibition
that intentionally presents the entire period of the Dutch presence in Asia,
and particularly in Indonesia, as a continuous story. At the same time, the
heading 'encounter' suggests a basis of equal footing, which again begs the
obvious questions (Zandvliet et al. 2002).
The present in the way of the past
It is all too evident that the choice for celebration was unfortunate and even
inappropriate. Commemoration would have been a better even if rather
oblique motto, and at least more of an open invitation for debate. Yet this is
not simply about words. This is, or should be, about the question whether
Dutch and Indonesians can see eye to eye in discussing the distant past. Most
certainly the answer to that question is affirmative. Yet it seems a more recent
past has stood in the way, the past, that is of decolonization.
It is indeed striking that the Dutch government earlier in 2002 found no
objections whatsoever in letting the Crown Prince express deep remorse in
Ghana over the Dutch involvement in the Atlantic slave trade, even if the host
government had not really expressed a desire to discuss this at all, while at
the same time The Hague still seems unable to find the right words regarding
the Indonesian independence, which most certainly would be appreciated in
Jakarta and beyond. Will we need another two or three centuries again? This
is all about priorities, wrongly set in this case. It seems that as long as there
are all too understandable Indonesian misgivings about the way the Dutch
handle not only '1602' but particularly '1945', the searching for common
ground regarding the VOC will continue to suffer.36
The Indonesian perspective on the VOC most certainly departs from the
conviction that the Dutch had no right to act as colonizers in the first place.
The idea of a celebration points in another direction - of equal partnership,
of an absence of violence, etcetera - and thus was bound to provoke irrita-
tion. Ambassador Abdul Irsan reported that at Dutch schools he still found
students thinking of the Dutch role in terms of a 'holy mission to civilise'
while, in his words, colonization was precisely a repression of human rights.
Yet there is room for open exchange once the effort is made. In fact, the
ambassador qualified the new educational materials on the VOC recently
published for use in Dutch schools 'a real progress' as now the dark sides
of murders and slavery were also acknowledged. He simply concluded that
36
The leadership of the four major political parties in the Netherlands explicitly declined to
support a public debate on Dutch decolonization in Indonesia and particularly the 1945-1949
period. See Houben 1997:51-2.

via free access
of this shared past, 'the good has to be preserved, the bad acknowledged'
(Andryanto and Maryasno 2001:117-9).
That is all there is to it. Political correctness may have gone out of fashion
again in the Netherlands, yet this is not about oblique self-criticism but rather
about the willingness to discuss a shared past in such a way that no partner is
excluded form the start. Once that common ground has been entered, debates
about morality can give way to other, perhaps more pressing discussions as
well. The most crucial of these may be the one of the origins and cohesion
of the Indonesian state as we know it today - a creation not so much of
the VOC which indeed never colonized more than some disparate parts of
the archipelago, but certainly of its successor, the Dutch colonial state, long
known to Indonesians simply as the kompeni, a telling continuity. In Professor
Sartono's words, 'the existence of the nation-state has to be explained in terms
of its colonial past and beyond', and '[t]he Dutch East Indies was inherited
by the new Indonesian State'. Sartono stresses that this story should be told
'nation-centric', and even that '[b]y revealing its genesis, the very existence
of the nation-state is justified or legitimized'.37 One need not subscribe to this
latter view to acknowledge that these are the issues that should engage us,
rather than sterile ones about self-congratulatory celebrations.
Squaring the circle
In short, while the 'celebration' of this particular history has a rather bizarre,
chauvinist and divisive flavour to it, 'commemoration' is as oblique as one
can get. The simple challenge is to engage in open debate. That is the way
to square the circle. Remarkably, almost half a century after the independ-
ence of Indonesia, this truism has proved less evident than one would have
expected. Not at the Dutch side which started this whole business in the first
place, nor at the Indonesian side which reacted rather predictably.38
37
' T h e nation-state is in m a n y respects a legacy of colonialism, e.g. its territorial unity, m a n y
of its institutions, e t c ' Sartono Kartodirdjo 2001:54, 63.
38
It seems, incidentally, that the reservations on the celebratory enterprise have not all been
lost on the organizing committee, if not in practice, at least in rhetoric. As I am writing these
lines, an invitation to join a meeting on 24 October 2002, again in the historical Ridderzaal,
lands on my desk. The programme is meant to exchange information on all that has been
accomplished in the VOC year and to thank the participating parties. The opening lines read
as follows: 'Dear X, Celebration 400 Years VOC is running smoothly. Many national and local
activities have been organized which have brought pleasure to many. The shadow sides too
have been covered extensively.' In the Introduction to its final report, the committee once again
makes a passing reference to the 'shadow sides', while at the same time concluding that there
has been 'wide public support' for the celebration. Many contributed 'enthusiastically', many
more participated 'with pleasure' (Viering 2002:3).

via free access
One need, incidentally, not surmise that this was a peculiar Dutch error
of judgement. It seems very hard for whatever nation to commemorate, let
alone celebrate its own past without offending others. 'Celebrations', writes
the Haitian-American scholar Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1995:118), 'straddle the
two sides of historicity. They impose a silence upon the events they ignore,
and they fill that silence with narratives of power about the events they cel-
ebrate.' A statement hard to gloss over. Certainly, there is the commendable
German Vergangenheitsbewaltigung, in sharp contrast to the Japanese refusal
to engage in such openness. Certainly, there has recently been a rather sud-
den commitment in many European countries as well as the United States
to officially regret the transatlantic slave trade. Yet these all reflect episodes
which could hardly elicit anything but shame and regret, once put in proper
perspective.
Turning to historically and morally more complex episodes, it apparently
becomes far more difficult not to fall back in chauvinism. This is exactly what
was at the heart of the heated debates regarding the celebrations of the 1492
descubrimiento (discovery) of the Americas. Though the events were eventu-
ally re-baptized into the more neutral and even cosy encuentro (meeting), and
in fact one observer thought 'the most striking feature of the quincentennial
was the loudness of dissenting voices world-wide', in Spain the celebratory
overtones remained sound and clear (Trouillot 1995:138). Do nations learn
from one another's mistakes? One often finds reasons to doubt. Thus, accord-
ing to the Indian historian of the VOC Sanjay Subrahmanyam, the Portuguese
practically 'ruined their relations' with the Asian countries involved by try-
ing to impose a celebratory tone to their jubilee - five centuries after Vasco
da Gama's indeed spectacular maritime exploits - of Portuguese-Asian rela-
tions.39 Former colonizers simply have a hard time keeping a sound distance.
The Dutch have once again proven not to be an exception to this rule.
Yet I would not want to rest my case here. I conclude by two observa-
tions on the role of professional historians in all this. It is appropriate to first
remind of the accurate observation by Adrian Lapian (2002:1), that whereas
there are opposing poles in the views and memories of the VOC and colonial-
ism as such, the interpretations of the small circle of historians in Indonesia
and the Netherlands tend to converge. As for my Dutch colleagues, I am
inclined to think that none of those who are presently working on the VOC
or Dutch colonialism at large would want to ignore the so-called 'shadow
sides'. Quite a few are actually inclined to even think of these as the core busi-
ness of the VOC and the ensuing colonial state. Yet it seems that at the same
39
Sanjay Subrahmanyam in a debate on the VOC at Amsterdam University, 24 June
2002. In the galley proof stage of the present article, I chanced upon a provocative article by
Subrahmanyam (2002) which addresses the same issues as I do here. While I could not use it for
my writing, it should be of interest to the reader.

via free access
time many have not been able or interested to avoid that their work would
be appropriated in the celebratory mood that prevailed in the Netherlands.
The VOC has definitely been incorporated there in the contemporary Dutch
cultural leisure industry with its limited space for critical appraisals.40 As one
of my esteemed colleagues wrote me in a note accompanying a booklet with
yet another of his solid contributions on the VOC: 'the title ['Illustrious Past']
is horrible'. Yet there it was, whether he liked it or not.41
So there is a shared past of colonialism with all of its implications of
inequity in power and spoils, a colonial history which indeed starts with the
VOC. This colonialism left many legacies, among which tangible benefits to
the Netherlands and the creation - not sought by the Dutch - of an independ-
ent Republic of Indonesia with the present national borders. The Dutch still
have a hard time incorporating colonialism into their version of the nation
and in a sense therefore, they still have not completed the decolonization
process, as I hope the above observations regarding the 'celebration' of the
VOC have illustrated. Have Indonesians, and particularly their historians,
done much better so far? Has Indonesian historiography dared to go beyond
national victimhood to explore the space between myth and the often sober-
ing realities of history? Has it yet managed to move beyond anticolonial-
ism to truly interrogate its own past? Some Indonesian historians stress the
need to move in that direction, but can they count on wide support?42 This
is dubious indeed, understandably perhaps in view of the present crisis of
the Indonesian state. Yet to move beyond crude post hoc anticolonialism and
to build an interpretive framework suitable to deal with the wide variations
in colonial impact both in time and region seems to be the real challenge for
Indonesian historiography - whether or not the Dutch are meanwhile trying
to square their circle as well.43
40
A similar point about the influence of the leisure industry o n the representation of the past
was recently m a d e b y Rietbergen 2002.
41
Historians from, or educated at, Leiden University h a v e been most p r o m i n e n t in the
Dutch celebration, which m a y fuel the barren dispute of a 'colonialist' Leiden school versus a
'progressive' A m s t e r d a m school (compare Meijer 1995).
42
For example Lapian 2002. Likewise, Professor R.Z. Leirissa e m p h a s i z e d d u r i n g t h e
September 2002 seminar in Jakarta t h e need to g o b e y o n d simply blaming the VOC, a n d to
also analyse a n d explain h o w a n d w h y local elites w o r k e d with the Dutch. A s his colleage d r
Bambang P u r w a n t o stated, in the e n d it is simply not very helpful to continue framing Indonesian
history since 1602 as one of p e r m a n e n t victimhood. Yet the reactions from the predominantly
Indonesian audience were at times fiercely hostile to such nuance. (My interpretation based o n
a personal communication, 14 October 2002, b y one of the participants at the seminar, Gerrit
Knaap.)
43
On the challenge of the decolonization of historiography in both countries, see Schulte
Nordholt 2002:40-2,52-4. Compare co-organizer Leslie Witz's remarks on the so-called 'Exhibition
Y35?', opened on 28 September 2002 in Cape Town: 'This exhibition raises important questions
about the many South African monuments and memorials that endure as icons serving to glorify

via free access
REFERENCES
Akveld, Leo and Els M. Jacobs (eds)

2002 De kleurrijke wereld van de VOC; Nationaal jubileumboek VOC 1602-2002.
Bussum: THOTH.
Andryanto, S. Dian and Haris Maryasno
2001 'Abdul Irsan; "Tak 'kan saya rayakan 400 tahun VOC'", Matra 184:117-
9.
Baud, Michiel
2001 Militair geweld, burgerlijke verantwoordelijkheid; Argentijnse en Neder-
landse perspectieven op het militaire bewind in Argentinie (1976-1983). Den
Haag: SDU.
Beus, Jos de
2001 'God dekoloniseert niet; Een kritiek op de Nederlandse geschied-
schrijving over de neergang van Nederlands-Indie en Nederlands
Suriname', Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der
Nederlanden 116:307-24.
Boomgaard, Peter
forthcoming 'Human capital; The role of slavery in low rates of economic and
population growth in early modern and early colonial Indonesia
(1600-1910)', in: Gwyn Campbell (ed.), Slavery in Asia. London: Cass.
Bossenbroek, Martin
2001 De meelstreep; Terugkeer en opvang na de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Amster-
dam: Bert Bakker.
Bruijn, Jaap R. et al.
2002 Roemrucht verleden; De Staten-Generaal en de VOC. Den Haag: Tweede
Kamer der Staten-Generaal.
Doel, H.W. van den
2000 Afscheid van Indie; De val van het Nederlandse imperium in Azie. Amster-
dam: Prometheus.
Dros, Nico
2002 'Oktober 1740: etnische zuivering in Batavia', Tirade 392:479-85.
Fabricius, Johan
1997 De scheepsjongens van Bontekoe. Amsterdam: Leopold. [First published
1923.]
Gaastra, Femme S.
2002 De geschiedenis van de VOC. Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
both individuals and events that represent and articulate South Africa's colonial and apartheid
past. [...] As our society undergoes transformation, should we alter, replace or destroy these
monuments? The central ambition of the Y350? exhibition is thus essentially one of revealing the
manner in which history is constructed.' Ironically, the exhibition was co-funded by the Dutch
Embassy alongside the University of the Western Cape.

via free access
Goor, Jur van

2002 'De Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie in de historiografie; Impe-
rialist en multinational', in: Gerrit Knaap and Ger Teitler (eds), De
Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie tussen oorlog en diplomatic, pp. 9-33.
Leiden: KITLV uitgeverij.
Greven, Jan and Ben Verschuren
2001 Een mondiaal bedrijf; 'Vierhonderd jaar VOC als onderwijsthema voor leer-
lingen van 10 tot 15 jaar. Enschede: SLO.
Houben, Vincent
1997 'A torn soul; The public discussion on the colonial past in 1995',
Indonesia 63:47-66.
2000 'The unmastered past; Decolonization and Dutch collective memory',
European Review 8-1:77-85.
Keppy, Herman
2001 'Viering van 400 jaar VOC? Laat onze ziel hun nagedachtenis bewee-
nen!', Marinjo November:8-9.
Knaap, Gerrit J.
1995 'Slavery and the Dutch in Southeast Asia', in: Gert Oostindie (ed.),
Fifty years later; Antislavery, capitalism and modernity in the Dutch orbit,
pp. 193-206. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Caribbean Series 15.]
Lapian, Adrian B.
2002 'Two different memories of a common past'. Paper, Seminar Vereenigde
Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC); The Two Faces of the World's First
Multinational Company, Jakarta, 3-4 September.
Leur, J.C. van
1955 Indonesian trade and society; Essays in Asian social and economic history.
The Hague /Bandung: Van Hoeve. [Selected Studies on Indonesia 1.]
Meijer, Remco
1995 Oostindisch doof; Het Nederlandse debat over de dekolonisatie van Indonesie.
Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Oostindie, Gert (ed.)
2001 Facing up to the past; Perspectives on the commemoration of slavery from
Africa, the Americas and Europe. Kingston: Randle/The Hague: Prince
Claus Fund.
Oostindie, Gert and Inge Klinkers
2003 Decolonising the Caribbean; Dutch policies in a comparative perspective.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Raben, Remco
2002 'De VOC: Het geheim achter succesvol modern leven; Herdenking
ontloopt iedere controverse', Historisch Nieuwsblad December:26-30
Reid, Anthony (ed.)
1983 Slavery, bondage and dependency in Southeast Asia. St. Lucia: University
of Queensland Press.
Rietbergen, Peter
2002 'De VOC herdenken?', Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 115:504-24.

via free access
Sartono Kartodirdjo
2001 Indonesian historiography. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Schulte Nordholt, Henk
2002 'A genealogy of violence', in: Freek Colombijn and J. Thomas Lindblad
(eds), Roofs of violence in Indonesia; Contemporary violence in historical
perspective, pp. 33-61. Leiden: KITLV Press. [Verhandelingen 194.]
Soekarno
1931 Indonesia klaagt aanl Pleitrede voor den landraad te Bandoeng op 2 December
1930 gehouden. Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers.
Soewardi Soerjaningrat
1913 Djika saja Nederlander,.../Als ik eens Nederlander was,... Bandoeng:
Comite Boemipoetra goena Merajakan Pesta Seratoes Tahoen Kerad-
jaan Belanda/Inlandsch Comite tot Herdenking van Neerlands Hon-
derdjarige Vrijheid.
Stipriaan, Alex van and Ellen Bal
2002 'De VOC is een geloof: kanttekeningen bij een populair Nederlands
imago', in: Manon van der Heijden and Paul van de Laar (eds),
Rotterdammers en de VOC; Handelscompagnie, stad en burgers (1600-1800),
pp. 213-43. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Subrahmanyam, Sanjay
2002 'We are the world; The universalist claims of Portuguese nationalism
and the "discoveries" of Vasco da Gama', Biblio; A review of books 14-7.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph
1995 Silencing the past; Power and the production of history. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Viering
2002 Viering 400 jaar VOC, 1602-2002; Programma van activiteiten. 's-Graven-
hage: Stichting Viering 400 jaar VOC.
Weijers, Wouter
2002 VOC magazine: Programma 2002. Den Haag: Stichting Viering 400 jaar
VOC.
Willems, Wim
2001 De uittocht uit Indie, 1945-1995. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
Worden, Nigel
2001 'The forgotten region; Commemoration of slavery in Mauritius and
South Africa', in: Gert Oostindie (ed.), Facing up to the past; Perspective
on the commemoration of slavery from Africa, the Americas and Europe, pp.
48-54. Kingston: Randle/The Hague: Prince Claus Fund.
Zandvliet, Kees et al.
2002 De Nederlandse ontmoeting met Azi'e, 1600-1950. Amsterdam: Rijks-
museum/Zwolle: Waanders.

via free access

G. Oostindie Squaring The Circle Commemorating The VOC After 400 Years

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G. Oostindie Squaring The Circle Commemorating The VOC After 400 Years

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Squaring the circle

In 2002, the Netherlands 'celebrated' the establishment, exactly four centu-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Nation-building and the representation of the past

The interpretation of the national past is a crucial ingredient in nation-build-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

congratulatory conclusions on the laudable humbleness of this great nation.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Colonialism in the narrative of the Dutch past

The whole idea of an innocent and freedom-loving Netherlands being vio-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

habitual pragmatism and equilibrium may well seem preposterous from

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Celebrating the VOC

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

presidents of the two Chambers of Dutch parliament, the Dutch National

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

historians and other intellectuals usually tended to criticize the concept of

Again a preliminary statement is useful. While the Dutch have dominated

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

But obviously we need to dig deeper. In a recently published collection of

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Indonesian reactions to the whole concept of a celebration of the VOC ranged

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Naivete, arrogance and diplomacy

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

There is a second explanation, which brings us back to the earlier remind-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

all Dutch publications emphasize the opening up of new trade routes,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

The present in the way of the past

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Squaring the circle

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Akveld, Leo and Els M. Jacobs (eds)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Goor, Jur van

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

Downloaded from Brill.com09/29/2021 02:54:03AM

You might also like