Niels van Montfort

Leestijd: 22 minuten

Abstract

Colonial remembrance has become a widely debated topic in the Netherlands, especially after prime minister Mark Rutte’s official apology for the history of slavery. This apology is not supported by most Dutch citizens, which is according to some scholars due to an active forgetting of colonial history. Laura Ann Stoler introduced the concept of colonial aphasia and goes further by explaining that it is not a form of forgetting that is responsible, but the inability to use and understand language about colonial history, which is often given or obstructed by media. Therefore, this essay examines newspaper articles on Rutte’s apology following the concept of colonial aphasia and finds that it is only present in less than half of the articles.

1. Introduction

In the past decades, there has been an increasingly present discussion on the history of the Netherlands as a colonial power and the effects on people who stood at the receiving end of Dutch colonial policy (Bijl, 2012; Oostindie, 2015). For a long time, the Dutch ‘Golden Age’, the period in the 17^th century in which the Netherlands experienced an exponential economic growth and saw the founding of the colonial trading companies that were responsible for the establishment of the nation’s profitable colonies, has been glorified. This could be seen in school textbooks (Weiner, 2014a), street names and statues or the infamous Golden Coach, that until recently was used by the Dutch king (Moses, 2022).

The discussion mainly regards the presence of the aftereffects of colonialism and slavery, today and has gained more attention in the last few years (Oostindie, 2015). This eventually led to prime minister Mark Rutte officially apologizing in name of the Dutch state for the history of slavery on 19 December 2022. He states that this past still has negative effects on the descendants of people enslaved by the Dutch today and that this issue requires further progression, mainly through the process of increasing awareness of the slavery’s aftermath.

One of the main problems today is this exact awareness according to Ann Laura Stoler, who coined the term ‘colonial aphasia’ for the lack of awareness of the colonial past in Western European states. This concept, which will be explored further later in this essay, has been applied to many different cases, within and outside of the Netherlands. However, it has not been linked to Rutte’s apology, an especially interesting case as it seems to acknowledge the presence of colonial aphasia in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, this apology is only in name of the Dutch government as shown by research that reveals only 40% of the population supports the apology, while 46% disagrees with it (Van der Schelde & Kanne, 2023). One explanation for this lack of support could be the concept of colonial aphasia, that is created through the information that people receive. Because traditional media are one of the most important sources of information for many people, this essay looks at newspaper articles regarding the apology to answer the following question: What is the relationship between colonial aphasia and newspaper articles on Mark Rutte’s apology for the history of slavery?

This essay first discusses the current literature on colonial remembrance and colonial aphasia in the Netherlands to clearly define the relevance of this question. Secondly, it further explores the concept of colonial aphasia and operationalizes it to test newspaper articles according to it following the method of discourse analysis. Thirdly, the findings of this analysis are presented, together with a discussion on the implications and conclusions of these results. Finally, the essay ends with a general conclusion, suggesting further research on this topic.

2. Literature review: Amnesia or Aphasia?

The debate on colonial remembrance is clearly visible both in the Dutch public sphere and in the academic literature. Most academic works on this topic are written as a result of the increasing multiculturalism of the Netherlands. As Oostindie (2011) states, there is more attention to the colonial past of the Netherlands than ever before. Consequently, this has led to several ways of the commemoration of the oppression experienced in the Dutch colonies, such as the opening of exhibitions and monuments. However, according to Emmer (2022) it is not mere attention that the colonial past receives as it “comes under critical scrutiny” (para. 1). The past has until now been glorified through street names and statues, but it is the heavy critique that characterizes the public debate today. This is followed by an active remembrance, which is not honest and complete according to Meuwese (2021). He bases this claim on the fact that the violence of the Dutch colonizers is only remembered in respect to certain regions and peoples, while others are entirely forgotten. Oostindie (2011) would agree, as he states that the Dutch have a culture of forgetting.

Essed and Trienekens (2008) seek to explain the lack of complete remembrance elsewhere and find it in racism. They discuss the difficulties that are inherent to a variety of races in the Dutch society. Race does not appear to be a strictly Dutch issue; Lentin (2008) develops the issue of racism further by claiming that “racism continues to define the sociality of Europe” (para. 1). Weiner (2014b) acknowledges this as racism is widespread throughout Dutch social institutions, which can be traced back to colonial oppression. Nonetheless, the Dutch do not recognize their own racism and can therefore not recognize their colonial past (Weiner, 2014b). Weiner (2014a) also explores the Dutch consciousness of the colonial history in school textbooks and finds that they fail to address this properly. This can be seen similarly in the general discourse within the nation, as the Dutch tend to try to forget their history of oppressing colonialism.

It appears that the colonial remembrance in the Netherlands is not fully developed due to the lack of awareness, caused by the Dutch habit to forget ‘darker’ histories. Other authors have a more complete explanation that it is not a matter of amnesia, but rather a curious case of aphasia, the inability to comprehend language (Bijl, 2014; Helsloot, 2012; Stoler, 2011; Weiner, 2014b). Bijl (2014) explains the lack of memory of the colonial past in the Dutch public sphere through the concept of colonial aphasia; the language necessary to discuss colonial violence and oppression is absent in the discourse in the Netherlands. Helsloot (2012) agrees with the importance of colonial aphasia and applies it to the case of Zwarte Piet, showing that racism is present in the Netherlands due to the lack of vocabulary to understand it.

Although the concept of colonial aphasia has been applied to different aspects of colonial remembrance, the link between colonial aphasia and the apology of Rutte has yet to be made. This apology may very well be an example of a lower degree of colonial aphasia, but the reactions to it give a broader overview of the understanding of the apology by the use of language. Therefore, this essay explores a number of newspaper articles that discuss Rutte’s apology to see if colonial aphasia can be recognized.

3. Colonial Aphasia: A Theoretical Framework

3.1 Theory and operationalization

In her essay on colonial remembrance in France, Stoler, the Willy Brandt Distinguished University Professor of Anthropology and Historical Studies at The New School for Social Research in New York City, claims that despite the widespread availability of sources on colonial history, there seems to be a divide between a country’s colonial history and its present state (2011, pp. 122-124). Many before have acknowledged the absence of an awareness of the damage inflicted upon the colonies and identified a gap in the collective memory of the colonizing countries, phrased as ‘amnesia’, either ‘collective’ or ‘colonial’ and ‘historical’ (p. 124). Stoler argues that amnesia or forgetting is not accurate enough to explain this lack of memory and introduces ‘aphasia’ into the debate (2011, p. 125). In the medical field, aphasia is a disorder that impacts one’s ability to comprehend or use language. In the context of colonial remembrance, colonial aphasia is the inability to use or understand the vocabulary required for understanding a country’s colonial past.

To explain colonial aphasia using an example, Helsloot’s (2012) exploration of the concept in connection to Zwarte Piet gives much insight. Zwarte Piet, the blackface character of the Dutch holiday of Sinterklaas is increasingly being seen as a racist caricature. Arguments of opponents this view on Zwarte Piet are met with seemingly illogical and dogmatic responses, claiming that there has never been a racist intention. Helsloot (2012) sees this as a form of aphasia, as these claims can only be made from a lack of knowledge and vocabulary.

Colonial aphasia extends beyond the inability to understand or use language regarding colonialism, to the obstruction of knowledge. For instance, in Wekker’s (2020) analysis of four major works on Dutch history, she noticed that none of these books mention the importance of race in the history of the Netherlands. This coincides with and reinforces the common idea that the Dutch are not racist and, in this way, “the issue of race in Dutch history is not forgotten, it is suppressed” (para. 5).

Testing the concept of colonial aphasia in newspaper articles regarding Rutte’s apology requires a clear operationalization. Colonial aphasia can be divided between three features: (1) An occlusion or obstruction of knowledge, (2) the inability to create a vocabulary that links the appropriate words to their corresponding things, and (3) the inability to understand the importance of that which has already been said (Bernard, 2023, p. 2; Stoler, 2011, p. 125; Wekker, 2020, para. 3). These key features of colonial aphasia are systematically assessed in 22 newspaper articles.

3.2 Method

As colonial aphasia as a concept mainly concerns the usage of words and their meanings and implications, a discourse analysis is most suitable for this research. The three features of colonial aphasia are to be separately tested in multiple newspaper articles.

The first feature is tested by examining to what extend the article obstructs knowledge on the Dutch colonial past – more specifically the historical reasons for the Dutch apology. Much obstruction means a high degree of colonial aphasia and little to no obstruction a low degree. The obstruction can be seen in how much the article aims to teach the reader about colonial history. The second feature requires an in-depth analysis of the words used in the article. Does the article use a vocabulary that expresses a thorough understanding of the history of the apology? Does the use of words lead to certain implications? The final feature can be tested through the article’s reference to other sources. A comprehension of that which has already been said can be recognized by the ability to use precisely that which has been said. Does the article build its argument on previous works on the topic?

These sources were selected through an online database, with a focus on variety of newspapers. The newspapers were not to be of a too similar orientation to each other as this would fail to provide an extensive and representative overview.

Nonetheless, this method has some limitations. Firstly, almost all newspaper articles are written in Dutch and thus require careful translation, especially since implications may easily get lost in translation. Secondly, as colonial aphasia is an abstract concept, concluding if there is a low or high degree of it is not a simple task. This cannot be determined by, for instance, giving each article a score and must therefore be done carefully, in relation to other articles and requires a proper explanation.

4. Colonial Aphasia in Dutch Newspapers

4.1 Results

For this essay, 22 Dutch newspaper articles regarding Rutte’s apology were analysed according to the three features of colonial aphasia. These articles were selected to form a diverse compilation, containing both regional and national newspapers as well as newspapers that follow a Christian perspective or that are regarded as scientific. This allows to conclude whether there is a connection to be made between the type of newspaper and the findings of the analysis.

Every article was tested on the three features separately and coded on if it shows a form of colonial aphasia in regard to that specific feature. The article is determined to either reflect colonial aphasia or, on the opposite, show some form of awareness of the colonial past.

The analysis of the first feature, the obstruction of knowledge on the Dutch colonial past by the article, resulted in an almost even division. Out of the 22 articles examined, 10 demonstrate a form of colonial aphasia, while 12 are deemed as being aware of the colonial past of the Netherlands. The first group failed to provide the reader with any context of Rutte’s apology speech or provided reason for the importance of the apology in the light of the Dutch colonial past. These articles are also not able to provide the reader with new or previously obstructed information surrounding the apology or colonial history. On the contrary, the second group can do precisely that. Some of these articles place the apology in a broader context by exploring the colonial history that Rutte’s speech aims at or by discussing the critiques some organisations and individuals had on the apology while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of such an apology. Others provide uncommon knowledge and prove the novelty of it through references to new research.

The second feature was analysed by examining the language used in the articles and how this revealed colonial aphasia. Only three articles could be classified as containing language of colonial aphasia in them. The main reason was the usage of the word ‘slaves’ to refer to what most Dutch media now call ‘enslaved people’. Although meaning the same, this nuance shows that these articles were not aware of the language used in this context. Nevertheless, there were no examples of leading or framing language that is characteristic for colonial aphasia. Eleven articles showed a clear awareness and active use of language on colonial history, as seen by the usage of the word ‘enslaved’ or by making a connection between words that are generally not associated with colonial history. Examples of these are calling certain figures who were previously regarded as criminals ‘resistance heroes’, speaking of ‘overdue salary’ or ‘rehabilitation’ for those who were enslaved, linking modern-day racism and discrimination to the colonial past, or calling slavery a ‘crime against humanity’. These articles also explain that these connections have only been made recently and that they require a deeper understanding of the effects of Dutch colonialism, immediately providing an answer as to why this could be considered the absence of colonial aphasia. Some articles did not only use different language themselves, but also critiqued the use of ‘limited’ language by others. The remaining nine articles could not be classified as either colonial aphasia or the opposite due to their neutral usage of language. They did not show awareness of the language, but neither did they appear as colonial aphasic texts. However, as they did not show any active usage of new language that result from an increased awareness of colonial aphasia, they belong under the classification of colonial aphasia.

The third and final feature is the understanding of what has already been said, analysed through the reference to others by the authors of the newspaper articles. Eight articles fail to refer to other sources to build an argument as they simply do not make use of any reference other than the speech itself. Naturally, understanding that which had already been said does for newspaper articles not only entail referencing other sources, but also showing this understanding in the contents of the text. These eight articles did neither. However, the 14 other articles did do this, for example by directly citing statements of interest groups or other relevant organisations. Other articles referred to experts on the topic to build arguments and thus show an understanding of the knowledge that already exists and how to apply it to the case of Rutte’s apology and its context.

When analysing these results, it is notable that most of the articles that belong to one classification in a certain feature also fit into that same classification for the other two features. Only five articles fall under one classification for one feature and under the other for the remaining two features. All the others are part of either group for all of the three features.

Furthermore, there does not appear to be a correlation between the extent of colonial aphasia and regional or national newspapers. Out of the 22 articles, 11 are from a regional newspaper and the other 11 from a national newspaper. Under the articles from regional newspapers, four articles show characteristics of colonial aphasia. For the national newspapers this amount is five.

4.2 Discussion

The overview of the findings of the analysis allows to explore its implications and answer the research question of this essay, namely to what extent colonial aphasia can be found in newspaper articles on Rutte’s apology. To answer this question: the findings have shown that slightly less than half of all analysed articles contain language and contents that suggest a form of colonial aphasia. That means that more than half are well aware of the colonial past and have the knowledge and vocabulary to speak on it. However, this does not mean that the first group is actually aphasic regarding the Dutch colonial past. To understand the implications of these findings, the possible correlations must first be examined further.

The findings have shown that there is no correlation between the degree of colonial aphasia in an article and the type of newspaper. The explanation that colonial aphasia is found more in either regional or national newspapers does not apply. Nonetheless, it is notable that articles that either have or lack colonial aphasic characteristics for one feature, tend to have similar outcomes for all three features. This means that articles are completely aware or aphasic, depending on the results, indicating that these findings are not coincidental. Colonial aphasia is a concept that does not require only one of the three features to be present; it is rather a concept that comprises of all three features combined. Knowing this, it could be concluded that colonial aphasia is indeed present in the relevant articles and that the articles similarly lack the concept.

Despite that, this conclusion seems careless as other possible explanations have not been explored. For instance, the articles that show colonial aphasia fail to present the reader with context and obscured knowledge on colonial history. One could say that the author did not attempt to provide context as he or she only aimed to report on the speech itself. This leads to a debate on a newspaper’s role, which this essay does not intend to engage in. Nonetheless, within the framework of colonial aphasia, the lack of context in a story on colonial history means a case of colonial aphasia, no matter the intention. This applies to other possible explanations; they all result in a discussion of intention or role within society. This essay views these articles in light of colonial aphasia and does not take these factors into account as they are not relevant for this concept.

Similarly, the articles that do not contain characteristics of colonial aphasia may require other explanations other than being aware of the colonial past. Perhaps there is a taboo on ‘wrong’ word-use in Dutch media, leading to the use of certain vocabulary. However, once again colonial aphasia does not only regard what words are chosen, but also the obstruction of knowledge and understanding of that which has been said. As the vast majority of articles had the same outcome for every feature, it is safe to say that these articles indeed have an increased awareness of Dutch colonial history and thus lack colonial aphasia.

Finally, it is difficult to conclude what this outcome means for colonial aphasia in general in the Netherlands. Does the absence of the features of colonial aphasia in most articles mean that there is less colonial aphasia in the Netherlands, or has it always been this way and is colonial aphasia a concept that does not apply to the whole of Dutch society? This question reflects the limitations of this essay. It is not generalizable for all Dutch media or Dutch society as a whole and it does not compare the findings with results of the past to be able to see an increase or decrease in colonial aphasia. To understand these issues, further research that compares these newspaper articles with articles from the past and regarding other aspects of this topic is necessary. It would also be relevant to research colonial aphasia in other media, such as radio and television or social media.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay aimed at answering the question of what the relation between colonial aphasia and Dutch newspaper articles on colonial aphasia is. Conducting this research using a discourse analysis, it appeared that slightly more than half of the articles did not show features of colonial aphasia. It can almost certainly be concluded that the presence or lack of colonial aphasia in these articles cannot be explained in another way, either because these explanations do not apply or because they are not relevant for the theoretical framework of this essay. This outcome suggests that colonial aphasia is something that is only present in less than half of the Dutch newspapers. It would be especially relevant to compare these results to those of older newspapers to see whether colonial aphasia has declined or not. Furthermore, newspaper articles do not represent the Dutch population in its totality, making similar research on different aspects of Dutch society interesting and essential to understand the role of colonial aphasia in the remembrance of Dutch colonial history. On top of that, the Netherlands are far from the only nation with such a history and research on colonial aphasia in other states that have exploited colonies would show if this concept is present elsewhere, especially as it is often claimed that the Dutch people tend to try to forget their notorious history.

Reference list

Bernard, M. (2023). Colonial Aphasia and the Circuits of Whiteness in Inclusive and Anti-Racist Youth Social Policy. Social Policy and Society, 1-16.

Bhageloe, S. (2022, November 6). ‘Niemand van nu schuldig aan slavernij, maar goed dat excuses worden gemaakt’. NOS. https://nos.nl/nieuws/binnenland

Bijl, P. (2012). Colonial memory and forgetting in the Netherlands and Indonesia. Journal of Genocide Research, 14(3-4), 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2012.719375  

Doolan, P. (2021). Collective Memory and the Dutch East Indies: Unremembering Decolonization. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048553075

Emmer, P. (2022). Decoloniality in the Netherlands. European Review, 30(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798722000321

Essed P. & Trienekens S. (2008). ‘Who wants to feel white?’ Race, Dutch culture and contested identities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701538885

Helsloot, J. (2012). Zwarte Piet and Cultural Aphasia in the Netherlands. Quotidian, 3(1).

Lentin, A. (2008). Europe and the Silence about Race. European Journal of Social Theory, 11(4), 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431008097008

Meuwese, M. (2021). Commemorating colonial violence from the Dutch golden age: New Netherland and Coen’s conquest of the Banda Islands in Dutch memory cultures. In J. Cox, A. Khoury & S. Minslow (Eds.), Denial: The Final Stage of Genocide? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003010708

Moses, C. (2022, January 14). Dutch Royals to Retire Golden Coach With Echoes of Colonialism. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/section/world

Oostindie, G. (2011). Postcolonial Netherlands Sixty-five Years of Forgetting, Commemorating, Silencing. Amsterdam University Press.

Oostindie, G. (2015). 2 – Ruptures and Dissonance: Post-colonial Migrations and the Remembrance of Colonialism in the Netherlands. In D. Rothermund, Memories of Post-Imperial Nations. The Aftermath of Decolonization, 1945–2013. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182543

Stoler, A.L. (2011). Colonial Aphasia: Race and Disabled Histories in France. Public Culture, 23(1), 121-156.

Van der Schelde, A. & Kanne, P. (2023). Nederlanders verdeeld over excuses voor slavernijverleden. I&O Research. https://www.ioresearch.nl/actueel/nederlanders-verdeeld-over-excuses-voor-slavernijverleden/

Van Goor, J. (1997). De Nederlandse koloniën. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse expansie 1600-1795. Sdu Uitgevers.

Van Welie, R. (2008). Slave trading and slavery in the Dutch colonial empire: a global comparison. New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 82(1-2), 47-96.

Weiner, M.F. (2014a). (E)RACING SLAVERY: Racial Neoliberalism, Social Forgetting, and Scientific Colonialism in Dutch Primary School History Textbooks. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 11(2), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X14000149

Weiner, M.F. (2014b). The Ideologically Colonized Metropole: Dutch Racism and Racist Denial. Sociology Compass, 8, 731-744. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12163

Wekker, G. (2020, April 1). Gloria Wekker – Suppressed Histories. The John Adams Institute. https://www.john-adams.nl/