Oost-Indisch Doof?
How the Netherlands turns a deaf ear on the violent
history of decolonization in Indonesia
Benthe van de Pol
Student Number: 6032192
Master Thesis: Political Science - International Relations First Reader: Lee J.M. Seymour
Second Reader: Julia Bader Date: 19 June 2015
2
Explanation of the title
Oost-Indisch Doof: Pretending not to hear something. An expression from the 19th century, from the Dutch colonialists about Indonesians ‘their habit not to listen to a warning or request, which is most applicable to the East-Indians, because they are ‘naturally slow’ because of the hot conditions’.
"De uitdrukking dateert uit de 19e eeuw. P.J. Harrebomée vermoedde dat 'deze
hebbelijkheid van niet te willen luisteren naar eene vermaning of een verzoek wel het meest op de Oost-Indiërs toepasselijk is, daar hun, door de heete luchtsgesteldheid, eene
natuurlijke traagheid eigen is. (Van Dale, 2006)”
Acknowledgement
As a high school student I learned about the decolonization of Indonesia. I looked at the picture of an angrily orating Soekarno, and memorized the dates of the Treaty of Linggadjati and the ‘police actions’. I actually had no idea what I was learning about. One and a half years later I studied political science and learned about a complete new history of
decolonization in Indonesia. I was astonished, not only by the biased portrayal that I learned in high school, but also by my own lack of critical capacity as a high school student to reflect on this history. Studying political science has proved to be a good choice, because looking back, critical thinking is one of the most important skills that I have advanced during my studies.
Writing this thesis was not only an academic challenge, but also a personal one. The many days behind a computer, alone with my thoughts have been a true learning
experience. The support of friends, classmates and dr. Seymour has helped me making sense of this complex topic of collective memory. What has been a very motivational
element over the past months is that I have discovered my personal enthusiasm for the field of education. In August I hope to start my career as a high school teacher teaching civics and history. I will keep this thesis in mind whenever I skip a paragraph out of a lack of time, and it is up to me to redesign the chapter of the twentieth century in the classroom.
3
Content
Acknowledgement p. 2
Introduction p. 4
Chapter 1: Theory p. 6
Chapter 2: Research Design p. 15
Chapter 3: History Education in the Netherlands p. 18
Chapter 4: The historical context of a colonial perspective p. 22
Chapter 5:History Education 1950 - 1970 p. 24
Chapter 6:History Education 1970 - 1990 p. 28
Chapter 7:History Education 1990 – today p. 33
Chapter 8: The overall development of the ‘colonial perspective' in history education in the Netherlands
p. 40
Chapter 9: Memories on the Algerian War in France p. 44
Conclusion p. 49
References p. 51
Appendix 1 p. 53
4
Introduction
At 9 December 1947 the Dutch military were searching for a member of the Indonesian revolutionary troops in the village of Rawagede on West Java. The Dutch soldiers did not find any sign of a freedom fighter hiding in the village. Instead, they gathered all the 431 men of the village, and executed them. This bloodbath is remembered as the ‘massacre of Rawagede’ (OVT NPO Geschiedenis, 2007; nos, 2011). This was one of the many violent attacks on the civilian population that Dutch military committed during the Indonesian War of Independence that lasted from 1945 until 1949. Thousands of Dutchmen and tens of thousands of Indonesians lost their lives during this conflict (Spruyt, 2005: 146).
Nowadays, 70 years after the start of the conflict, the Netherlands has been accused of suffering from ‘colonial amnesia’. Meaning that the Netherlands does not remember it’s violent colonial past (Bijl, 2012: 442)’. In this paper, I will focus on the collective memory of the Netherlands on this history, to see how this is addressed in the field of history
education.
The research question in this paper is: ‘To what extend can Bourdieu’s theory on reproduction explain the Dutch collective memory of the decolonization in Indonesia?’ As this research will show, the collective memory of the Netherlands on this history is
determined by a ‘colonial perspective’. The theory of Bourdieu can be useful to understand the reproduction of a ‘colonial image’ of the conflict in Indonesia. This ‘colonial perspective’ is the image that was created by the Dutch government in the 1940’s the justify the war. In order to answer the research question, the following sub questions are answered: ‘What is collective memory, and how can memories be reproduced?’ This question will be answered in the theory section using theories on collective memory and reproduction. The second sub question is: ‘What is the “Dutch collective memory” of the decolonization of Indonesia in the field of education?’ This will be answered in the chapters 6, 7 and 8, with an analysis of the schoolbooks and the school curriculums from the 1950’s until today and social context of that time. The final sub question is: ‘Is there a similar process of reproduction visible in France on the memories of the Algerian War?’ This question is answered in chapter 9.
This paper is specifically focused on the field of education. History education in the Netherlands is compulsory for all children that attend secondary education, which is split in
5
different levels. In this paper I take into account a multi-layered system of education. There is an interplay between the government, text books publishers, schools and teachers that together define the field of history education in the Netherlands. Decision-making power is attributed to different actors within the field and therefore they are addressed in this paper by doing interviews with important players in the field of education.
“The school curriculum communicates what we choose to remember about our past, what we believe about the present, what we hope for the future (Sleeter, 2010: 193).”
Analyzing history education in the Netherlands could contribute to a more profound understanding of how this violent history of decolonization is transmitted to our children, and thus to an understanding of what we would like to remember about our history in the Netherlands and what not. Moreover this thesis could provide new insights in the theory of Bourdieu, by applying his theory of reproduction of inequalities to the reproduction of knowledge. In this paper I argue that there is a complex interplay between conscious and unconscious decision-making that prevents the violent history of decolonization from becoming part of the collective memory of the Netherlands.
The outcome of this question shows that the portrayal of the history of
decolonization is shaped by a ‘colonial perspective’ that dates back from the 1940’s. As will be explained in chapter 4, the war in Indonesia has been justified by the Dutch government in the 1940’s through a In this paper, school books from the 1950’s onwards are analyzed and have shown that from the 1950’s onwards the attention for the war in Indonesia has increased, however, the history books continue to emphasize a ‘colonial perspective’. There is a tendency to defend choices that were made by the Dutch military, and give little
attention to the war crimes that were committed and the suffering of the Indonesian civilian population.
6
Chapter 1: Theory
This chapter is dedicated to answer the first sub question: ‘What is collective memory, and how can it be reproduced?’ In this thesis I will grasp the complex interplay between
conscious and unconscious decision-making on collective remembrance. In order to do so, I follow the line of Assman and Kansteiner on their understanding of collective memory. In this theory section I connect their theories, with the theory of Bourdieu who can help us understand how these collective memories are reproduced.
There is a scholarly debate about the ontological and epistemological nature of the concept of collective memory. According to Wolf Kansteiner, the field of memory is a ‘slippery phenomenon’. Collective memory is not the same as history, because: “it is a collective phenomenon that manifests itself in the actions and statements of individuals (…) it is as much a result of conscious manipulation as unconscious absorption and it is always mediated (Kansteiner, 2002: 180).” This quote reveals the complexity of this research topic. It shows that there is a collectively shared history, which is slippery according to Kansteiner, because it manifests itself in the actions of individuals, and is therefore difficult to
distinguish from personal perceptions that are unique to that individual. Furthermore, how conscious manipulation and unconscious absorption relate to each other is not answered by Kansteiner. Bourdieu’s theory on reproduction aims at understanding this relationship. Therefore his theory is comprehensively discussed in this chapter, in connection to the theories on collective memory, that will be addressed in the following paragraph.
Three levels of memory
Jan Assmann distinguishes three different levels of memory. First there is the individual memory that concerns our personal memory. Secondly, on the social level, memory is a matter of communication and social interaction. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs explained that memory is based on socialization and communication and that memory can be analyzed as a function of our social life (Assmann, 2008: 109). Social memory is based on everyday communication, that is regulated by predetermined patterns of social interactions. For example, a conversation in a waiting room, or at a train station prescribes a different form of communication than the conversation at a family’s dinner table (Assmann, 1995: 127). Through everyday communication, the memory of individuals is composed. People remember in line with their perception of a situation. Memory is thus socially mediated and
7
relates to a group. This group is not a random set of people, but a group of people that are united through a shared image of their past (Assmann, 1995: 127). The third level of memory is the cultural level . Assmann states that when we move away from everyday communication, and look at objectivized culture we see a different phenomenon that Halbwachs doesn’t include in his ideas on collective memory. On the cultural level, memory is shaped by ‘figures of memory’. ‘Figures of memory’ can be seen as carriers of memory, that bring a perspective of the past into the present. ‘Figures of memory’ are objects such as texts, monuments, museums etc. (Assmann, 1995: 129). In this process memory is
transformed into history (Assmann, 1995: 128).
Individual and collective: two sides of the same coin
The concept of three levels of memory , that is introduced by Assmann, has been an influential contribution to the study on collective memory. However, we should be careful not to see these three levels as a trichotomy. As stated before, Kansteiner describes the concept of collective memory as a ‘slippery phenomenon’, because we cannot distinguish between the individual and the collective, since collective memory manifests itself on the individual level (Kansteiner, 2002: 180). Kansteiner argues that the development of memory is a process of conscious and unconscious manipulation. If we follow Kansteiners way of thinking, collective memory can be shaped, produced and spread by actions of individuals. He states that “we should conceptualize collective memory as the result of the interaction among three type of historical factors; the intellectual and cultural traditions that frame all our representations of the past, the memory makers who selectively adopt and manipulate these traditions, and the memory consumers who use, ignore or transform such artefacts according to their own interests (Kansteiner, 2002: 180).” In his approach Kansteiner thus attributes a conscious decision-making process to ‘memory makers’ and ‘memory
consumers’. In the field of education this would mean that government officials or history teachers consciously estimate the relevance and interpretation of histories, and that students interpret the knowledge they obtain according to their own interests. And in the case of the history of decolonization, it would mean that individuals consciously
underexpose this history in the field of education.
From a Bourdieusian perspective one could disagree with Kansteiner on his ideas of consciousness. Pierre Bourdieu proposed a broad theory on reproduction in society from a
8
structuralist perspective. Bourdieu has written extensively on reproduction in education, and his main argument was that the educational system has a central role in reproducing social and cultural inequalities from one generation to the next (Harker, 1984: 118). This reproduction of social inequalities will be more thoroughly explained further in this chapter. Bourdieus theory is essential for the argument of this paper, because his theory could give us a better understanding of the interplay between what Kansteiner names ‘conscious and unconscious manipulation’ and how these manipulated portrayals are reproduced. In the following paragraphs the key concepts of his theory will be explained as will be their relevance for this paper.
Reproduction by Bourdieu
Bourdieu develops a series of concepts that have become commonplace in the social sciences (Calhoun, 2007: 261). He tries to understand the dynamic relationship between structure and agency, or structure and practices. In his theory he creates a ‘relational analysis of social tastes and practices’. One of his main arguments is that agents occupy positions that are relative to one and other, within the social space. Practices, such as behavior, style and use of language, are associated with specific positions within the social space. Bourdieu develops a concept of habitus in order to explain the interplay between the social structure (one’s position in the social space) and agency (one’s practices in the social space) (Calhound, 2007: 260). Some scholars interpret these ideas as a purely structuralist argument, in a way that leaves no room for human agency. One could think that a
comparison of Bourdieu with Kansteiner would lead to a deterministic interpretation of Bourdieu’s work, because he sees agency in such different manner (Harker, 1984: 120). Bourdieu claims that agents often behave according to their positions in the social space, but we cannot draw a direct causal link between social positions and behavior. In order to explain the interplay between social positions and social practices, Bourdieu develops a theory on reproduction, with concepts such as habitus, field and capital, that form the basis of the argument of this paper. Each of these concepts, and their interpretation in this paper, will be explained in the following paragraph.
Habitus
With habitus Bourdieu refers to ‘a socially obtained structure of durable, transposable dispositions.’ This is described by Bidet as: “the culture (of an epoch, class or any group) as it
9
is internalized by the individual in the form of durable dispositions that are the basis of his/her behavior (Bidet as in Harker, 1984: 120).” With the development of the concept of habitus, Bourdieu tried to explain how structures affect agents in a reflexive or pre-conscious way. Bourdieu argues that “structures can have an effect on agents of which the agents are not conscious (Marsh 2010: 219).” The development of the habitus on a new generation is twofold. The primary source of the development of a child’s habitus is the habitus of the ‘socializing agents’, often the family or close relatives (Harker, 1984: 120). Secondly, in a situation of change, the habitus of the child changes towards the habitus that is required by the new environment. This process of assimilation continues to occur
throughout one’s lifetime (Harker, 1984: 120). This description implies that habitus is a
structuring structure because the habitus is an unconscious socially developed framework,
but it also is a structured structure because it is constantly affected by social structures in which agents are situated (Marsh, 2010: 220).
In short, habitus is everybody’s unconscious, and socially developed framework. This means that in the field of education, the actors involved in the decision-making process on the importance and relevance of the history of decolonization, are highly dependent on their habitus in their decisions. In order to succeed in the field of education, one has to be able to adapt towards an approved habitus by the dominant group. Most people occupying higher positions within the field of education have an academic background, and share a similar habitus. One’s habitus is decisive in the process of succeeding in the ‘field’.
Fields
The habitus takes its form in different ‘fields’. Fields are different surroundings in which agents find themselves, and where individuals are assessed on abilities and achievements that are desired within the field (Akram, 2012: 55). “According to Bourdieu, social
formations are structured around a complex ensemble of social fields in which various forms of power circulate. (..) Fields are structured through patterns of hierarchy that create
dominant and subordinate positions for institutions and agents (Naidoo, 2004: 458).” The positions agents obtain within the field are dependent on their abilities and achievements. In the next paragraph this will be more thoroughly explained, but these abilities and achievements are an important part of Bourdieu’s theory that he named “capital”.
10
where he dedicated much attention to, is relatively autonomous. It generates its own values and behavioral imperatives (Naidoo, 1984: 458). In the field of secondary education, the focus of this paper, one could argue that there is a less autonomous position then in the field of higher education, because of the strong government influence. The decision-making process on the content and guidelines for teachers and schools proceeds on the national level. Thus, in this paper, it is not only the interests in the educational field that are of influence on the design of history education. The political field is also connected to the decision-making part of the field of education.
Moreover, the ability of an agent to obtain a more or less dominant position is also partly designated by other fields than the field of secondary education. For instance, the ‘canoncommissie’ or ‘committee on the canon’ was erected by the Minister of Education, who provided them the assignment to develop a ‘Canon of the Netherlands’. She personally appointed members of the committee based on their achievements within the field of education. The canon was finally presented to the Minister of Education. It was due to the cultural and social capital of the members of the committee that they were selected by the Minister personally (Interview, 1-5-2015).
Thus in line with what Bourdieu stated, a field has its own rules of organization, and specific abilities that are seen as valuable. Within the field, obtaining these assets can create opportunities to climb the social ladder to more dominant positions. Fields do not exist in a complete autonomous position, and therefore agents come in contact with other fields where possibly other abilities are required. In the field of education, dominant positions are mostly held by people with an academic background (SCP, 2006: 14).
This applies to the field of education where, in order to climb the social ladder, one has to succeed in the highest levels of education, in order to proceed to the academic level. Academic education generates different forms of capital that contribute to the chances of success in the field. Meaning that one’s position on the social ladder is eventually
determined by the social status that is derived from one’s achievements within the field, and one’s (cultural) capital. Cultural capital is addressed in the following paragraph and the dynamics of field are more comprehensively explained in the following chapters of this paper.
11
Capital
To address power and power-relations in his theory, Bourdieu developed different concepts of capital (Harker, 2012: 119). “The possession of different forms of “capital” provides the basic structure for the organization of fields, and thus the generation of forms of habitus and the practices associated with them. “Capital may be viewed as the specific cultural or social (rather than economic) assets that are invested with value in the field, which when possessed, enables membership to the field (Naidoo, 2004: 458).”
Bourdieu addresses economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. Economic capital is the possession, control, or proximity to wealth or property (Calhoun, et al. 2007: 263).” In contrast, cultural capital is a form of capital that is associated with cultural knowledge or prestige associated with high educational achievement. Also, Bourdieu speaks about social and symbolic capital. Social capital is based on social connections with others. Symbolic capital refers to the capability of actors to use practices as symbols in order to claim and maintain positions. Each of these forms of capital is connected with the other (Calhoun, et al. 2007: 263). Social and cultural capital can bring opportunities on the labor market, and thus generate economic capital.
In the field of education this means that one’s career opportunities are determined by an interplay between the different forms of capital that a person entails. For climbing the social ladder in the field of education, having an academic background is deemed as
important (SCP, 2006: 14). Moreover, the habitus and the different forms of capital that are associated with the academic background are the assets that are essential for climbing the social ladder. In order to achieve a position in the field of education where one is entitled to develop the history curriculum, or to write history textbooks, one has to have obtained different forms of capital within the field. A profound knowledge of history and education on an academic level is required.
Reproduction through the lens of Bourdieu
Bourdieu’s argument is focused on the reproduction of inequalities (Harker, 1984: 117). The interrelated character of fields, habitus and capital create a theoretical framework in which Bourdieu shows that structures can have independent causal power (Marsh, 2012: 220). In the field of education Bourdieu argues that the culture of the most dominant groups in society, the groups that have the most economic, social and cultural capital, are embodied
12
in schools (Harker, 1984: 118). The culture of the dominant groups is taken for granted as the ‘natural and only proper sort of capital’. Children from all groups in society are seen as equally equipped to succeed in schools. However, Bourdieu argues that for someone from a non-dominant background to succeed, a cultural shift is necessary (Harker, 1984: 118). His argument can be interpreted as ‘frozen’, but “reproduction is never perfect – never an exact photocopy (Harker, 1984: 121)”. This implies that through time, the structuring character of the habitus can gradually change the dominant cultures.
Bourdieu’s theory does not only explain the reproduction of inequality through school systems. Through social and cultural capital, decision-making power can be obtained within the field of education. Individuals with academic backgrounds, who have thus
succeeded in the school system, and with a degree of high social capital were in 2006
selected by the minister of education to create the ‘canon of the Netherlands’. These people were given ‘complete freedom’ to create a canon that was supposed to give a clear
overview of Dutch history, and could serve as a template for history education. In practice one cannot speak of ‘complete freedom’. The committee was selected on a personal title, because of their position and achievements in the field of education. This means there was a lot at stake for the members of the committee since they would be held personally accountable for the outcome of their product that gained a lot of attention within the society. In order to create an influential product, the committee had to incorporate earlier established frameworks of history. And, in order to maintain the social capital they all enjoyed, the task had to be conducted to the satisfactory of the government.
Reproduction of knowledge
Bourdieu’s theory on the reproduction of inequalities through the school system could also be useful to understand the reproduction of knowledge. In order to succeed in the
educational field, children must obtain knowledge that is selected from a specific cultural perspective. Whether or not children succeed, everyone attending school comes in contact with information that is selected with specific cultural values. The children who do well in school, are able to climb the social ladder and eventually can end up on influential positions that set the standards for success in future generations. In the field of education, this means that people who have succeeded in schools have been able to obtain knowledge and skills that were set as a standard by the policy makers and curriculum developers. It are (a few) of
13
these people who will climb the ladder in the field of education and end up holding the positions of policy makers and curriculum developers. Based on their knowledge, they will set the standards for future generations and the curriculum they create will be infused by the perspectives that they have obtained during their education.
But also from a less deterministic viewpoint, this argument holds. Bourdieu argues that the individual’s habitus can change, and this can have an influence on the social structure. However, in order to do so, one must come in contact with new or different perspectives.
As this research will show, people who are working in the field of education have been educated in schools where there was no or very little attention for the decolonization of Indonesia, and moreover, the information they did obtain was neglecting the violence that occurred. In the education system the Dutch military in Indonesia are portrayed as peaceful actors that tried to restore order in a chaotic colony, which was supposedly ‘not (yet) ready for independence’. The school books that have been used since the 1950’s do not mention the violence that was used, and they certainly do not speak about war crimes that were committed by the Dutch army. Instead, euphemistic labels as police actions are used to mention the events, without explaining what they actually entailed. Moreover the portrayal of Indonesian resistance as guerrilla warfare, contribute to an image in which the violent actions of the Dutch are condoned, and overshadowed by histories of violence committed by others.
In this paper, I will show how the representation that was spread by the government during the war in Indonesia is reproduced in the Dutch school system. This representation is favoring powerful groups in Dutch society, namely the government and the veterans. In the 1940s, the Dutch government had incentives to justify the conflict in Indonesia by
portraying it as ‘police actions’ against rebel groups. It has remained their incentive not to acknowledge that the conflict actually was a war that was being fought with structural use of violence.
Euphemistic language and its associated representations are reproduced up until today. As will be explained in the empirical section of this thesis, the government remained reluctant to acknowledge the extent and severity of the atrocities committed by the Dutch army in Indonesia. I want to argue that within the field of education, a ‘colonial perspective’ is reproduced, and remains relatively uncontested. Within the field of education a specific
14
image of the conflict is created according to the prevailing view in the 1950’s. This image remained relatively similar despite developments within the field of education such as changes in the pedagogy and aims of history education.
However the portrayal hasn’t remained exactly the same. We can see Bourdieu’s theory at work when we see that individual teachers and textbook writers have over the years created slight changes in the approach towards this history. The most recent history books mention the violence and the euphemistic character of the term ‘police actions’. Also, the changes in pedagogy have shed a new, more critical, light on this conflict in the last decade. However, the war itself is explained with the same reasoning that was used in the 1940’s. Moreover, there is not much attention given to this topic. The history of
decolonization in Indonesia is not included in the curriculum, and it is up to each history teacher to decide for him or herself whether this topic is being discussed. This means that the trivialized image of the conflict, which the government created in the 1940’s, is reproduced in our education system up until today. In the curriculum of Dutch history education, the history of decolonization of Indonesia is considered as one example of
decolonization that is interchangeable for any other decolonization process in world history. This chapter has showed that the concept of collective memory is a complex
phenomenon that manifests itself on three different levels, the personal, social and collective level. Memories on the collective memory are interpreted and spread through a process of conscious and unconscious manipulation. Bourdieu’s theory has helped us to understand how his ideas on social reproduction also can be applied on the reproduction of knowledge. His concepts of habitus, fields and capital have shown that there is a process of structuring in the field that gives preference to an academic habitus, which is connected to a cultural capital that is informed by successful completion of (history) education. The
obtained knowledge, that is part of this cultural capital, is thus reproduced through the decision-making in the school curriculum.
15
Chapter 2. Research Design
This research on the reproduction of collective memory is focused on history education, because it is compulsory for all children that attend secondary education in the
Netherlands. Thus, history education can be seen as an important factor in the formation and reproduction of collective memory.
The choice has been made to analyze the HAVO and VWO level of secondary
education. VWO is pre-academic education and is the highest level. HAVO stands for ‘higher general secondary education’ and is the second highest level. These two levels have been chosen because they are the supposed to be the most profound teachings of history, since it are the two highest levels of secondary education. Also, following Bourdieu’s theory, it are the children that attend these levels of secondary education that are prepared for the field of academic education. The history books that are analyzed in this research thus have informed former, current and future curriculum developers, textbook writers and high school teachers.
This paper is a case study, because it is focusing on the portrayal of one historic episode in the Dutch education system. However, to give a full answer to question how the memories on Indonesia are formed, it is essential to understand how the portrayal of history is reproduced over time. Thus, a longitudinal element is an important part of the research design. Schoolbooks from different eras are studied, as well as the criteria these schoolbooks have to meet. Furthermore, to create a better understanding of how collective memory on a violent history is formed and reproduced, in chapter 9 I will compare the Dutch collective memory on Indonesia with the collective memory of France on the Algerian War of Independence.
Research Methods
The structure of the research is twofold. First, schoolbooks from the 1950’s until the present are analyzed with a critical discourse analysis (CDA) in order to establish an understanding of the portrayal of this conflict over time. A critical discourse analysis is useful to map out the underlying message on the history of decolonization that is propagated in the texts, and how or if this changes over time. Secondly, interviews have been held with people that are involved in the decision-making process on the content of history education. This gives us an
16
insight in the way in which the collective memory on the decolonization of Indonesia is shaped and reproduced, and what power dynamics are at work here.
A discourse can reveal how the use of language contributes to our understanding of the social world (van Dijk, 1983: 250). Discourses can (re)produce or challenge dominance. “Dominance is defined here as the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups. (…) critical discourse analysts want to know what structures, strategies or other properties of text, talk and verbal interaction or communicative events play a role in these modes of reproduction (van Dijk, 1983: 250).” Thus, we can see language, in all its appearances, as a source of social power, that shapes the way in which we address and interpret phenomena.
Scope conditions
Practically, this analysis is focused on the language, layout and structure of the book that all contribute to a specific understanding of this history. I should note that of course, as van Dijk explains in his assessment of CDA, discourse development and reproduction take place in all forms of communication. I chose to focus on the analysis of textbooks and curricula because it gives a change to analyze changes in the portrayal of this history over time, and include an longitudinal element to this research.
The analysis of the schoolbooks covers 65 years. In the execution of this analysis, this time span has been split into different time periods: 1950-1970; 1970-1990 and 1990-today. These time periods have been chosen because the end dates of these periods are marked by changes in the structure of history education in the Netherlands. As will be explained in the following chapter, the Rijksleerplan of 1968, has laid the foundation of (history) education in the Netherlands until the beginning of the 1990’s (Wilschut, 2011: 11). In the 1970’s a commission on modernization of the curriculum made changes to the content of history education (de Jong, 2014: 279). In the beginning of the 1990’s the Rijksleerplan was replaced by the Tweede Fase (Second Phase) and later the development of the Tien
tijdvakken (Wiltschut, 2011: 31). The time periods determined the structure of the empirical
chapters of this thesis. Chapter 5 is focused on the time period between 1950 and 1970 and chapter 6 on the period between 1970 and 1990. Chapter 7 is focused on the period from 1990 until today. In chapter 7 a paragraph covers the ‘Canon of the Netherlands’ and ‘Indonesia in the classroom’ because the interviews that have been conducted on these topics apply to this time period.
17
In order to give a better understanding of how this portrayal is reproduced I have conducted interviews with three persons in the field of education. These three people each represent a specific group that is of influence in the field of education. The first person that is interviewed was part of the ‘Canon Committee’ that developed the historic canon, and currently holds a position as board member of the foundation ‘Entoen.nu’. The second interview is conducted with a board member of a history teachers association ‘Vakgroep
Geschiedenisdocenten Nederland’ (VGN), who also is a history teacher at a high school and
the teacher training program. Thirdly, a publisher who works for one of the largest publishing houses of schoolbooks in the Netherlands is interviewed.
In practice, the interviews have been done in a semi-structured way. The aim was to understand the decision-making process on the way in which the history of decolonization is addressed in history education, and the perception of the interviewee on this history.
18
Chapter 3: History education in the Netherlands
This chapter gives an overview of the development, structure and power relations in the field of history education in the Netherlands. An understanding of the field of education is essential to answer the research question about reproduction within this field. This chapter will start with a short introduction about the origin of the nationally coordinated field of history education. Then the developments of history education under national coordination will be discussed, followed by an explanation of the structure of the field of education and the relational character of all actors that are involved.
The origin
Since 1857, history education has been a compulsory element of the curriculum of
children’s education in the Netherlands. The political aim of history education at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century was the teaching of civic virtues. With the expansion of the suffrage, a growing number of inhabitants became ‘full citizens’, which meant that they had to be educated in their rights and obligations as citizens.
Specifically, history education was seen as instrument to generate patriotism (Wilschut, 2011: 13). As a result of the ‘School Struggle’ there was a development of three different types of schools in line with the general pillarization in Dutch society. There were Catholic, Protestant and ‘neutral’ schools, who were all entitled to shape their own education. This system remained until the 1960’s, when the structure of secondary education was
standardized and decision-making about education was transferred to the national level (Wilschut, 2011: 16).
National coordination
In the 1960’s not much value was attributed to history education throughout Europe. In the Netherlands there was a reduction in the number of compulsory hours of history education (Wiltschut, 2011: 18). From the 1970’s onwards this changed because of a change in the perception of the purpose of history education. Where up until the 1960s the focus lay on the nationalistic education, in the 1970’s the focus shifted towards students obtaining skills that could attribute to the liberal democratic state. This meant that graduating students were supposed to understand the origin and development of social phenomena, to have the ability to critically analyze traditions within society, and to understand the complexity of the
19
social world and human existence (Wiltschut, 2012: 20). This shows that in the 1970’s there was a change in the perception of history as well as pedagogy. The idea that students were supposed to learn skills instead of “factual” knowledge required a major change in the design of history education. An example of this change is reflected in the emphasis that was put on the investigation of resources. The origin and purpose of information had to be critically examined (Wiltschut, 2012: 23). In the 1980’s the research of sources of
information was officially included in the curriculum. In this decade and in the 1990s there was a return of more purely historic elements (Wiltschut, 2012: 26). This, together with the implementation of annually changing themes for the national final exams in 1986, shows that the development of competencies for historic research as a preparation for academic education were considered most important.
For this research I have chosen to consider the history text books from the HAVO and VWO level from the 1950’s until today. An important element in this research is the understanding of the changes in the content of history education, and the approach that is chosen for a ‘sensitive’ subject such as the decolonization of Indonesia. New curricula on the content and approach in history education have been included in the empirical chapters 4 and 5 of this research.
Structure of education in the Netherlands
In order to understand the development of Dutch history education, it is important to sketch out the structure of the field of education, and the relational character of the actors in the field.
The field of secondary education in the Netherlands is a multi-layered structure. It is the government that creates guidelines for the content of history education. Schoolbook publishers give substance to these guidelines in their creation of schoolbooks. Then it is up to the school, the department of history or the teacher himself to create classes and lectures about history, working towards the end goal: the final exam. Through the teachers association teachers influence the government on content and organizational matters.
20
Figure 1. The multi-layered structure of the field of secondary education.
Figure 1 shows that the three main actors in the field of education are related to one another. This relational aspect ensures that the actions of each of these actors has a dominant influence on the actions of the other actors. In practice this means that the guidelines of the government are decisive for the actions of textbook publishers, schools and teachers. The decisions made by textbook publishers determine to a great extent the content of the history education. The process of composing the end product, history
education, is actively influenced by the way in which these actors relate to one another. The government is the most dominant actor, which can set the standards that textbook
publishers as well as history teachers have to meet. The textbook publisher has an influence because they give substance to the general guidelines of the government. Their clients, the schools and teachers, implement the work of the government and publishers. The
government guidelines are crucial for the choices that teachers make when they design their classes. Through the teachers association the teachers can express their critique on the guidelines provided by the government. The relationship between these actors determines the content of the end product: history education.
The positions of people who decide on the content of history education, are determined by the habitus and cultural capital that individuals have obtained, which can create career opportunities within the field. There is some ‘exchange’ between these actors, because people can climb the social ladder or be active on two levels at the same time. (e.g. a history teacher can have an additional position as a textbook writer for the textbook publisher.)
In short, this chapter has shown that history education in the Netherlands has since the 1960’s been coordinated on the national level. History education used to be an
Schools and teachers Textbook publishers
21
instrument to generate patriotism, and has gradually developed in a course that is supposed to prepare students for academic research. Within the field of education the government holds a powerful position in setting the standards for history education that the textbook publishers, schools and teachers have to meet. However, the substance that is given to the curriculum is formed by the way in which the different actors in the field relate to each other.
22
Chapter 4: The historical context of a colonial perspective
In order to understand the history that is reproduced about this conflict I will, in this section, try to shortly explain the historical context of the Netherlands at that time. Furthermore I will describe what has happened in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949 according to academic historic accounts, and how this was communicated by the government to the Dutch people.
In the Netherlands, at that time, there was a tendency to focus on the heroism of the resistance fighters against the German occupation, and the image that the heroism applied to the nation as a whole. Resistance acts were exaggerated, which Judt claims is part of a ‘postwar national mythology’ (Judt, 1996: 42). “This national myth compensated for the humiliating and shocking experience that the war actually had been. ‘National impotence’ was demonstrated by the quick military defeat in 1940, the degrading occupation and the liberation by foreign armies in 1944-45. To reconstruct national self-esteem, a meaningful narrative of a nation in resistance was invented and disseminated with success (van Ooijen & Raaijmakers, 2012: 467).”
In 1947 the Republic of Indonesia’s declaration of independence came as a shock to the Netherlands. The history of decolonization in Indonesia was characterized by violence. After the Second World War the Netherlands tried to regain power over the colony known as the Dutch-Indies. It culminated in a war that lasted from 1945 to 1950. Military
repression was an important instrument of the Dutch army throughout the conflict,
especially during the, euphemistically labeled, ‘police actions’ (Groen, 1994: 30). In 1949 the Netherlands recognized Indonesian sovereignty, and in the years that followed the conflict came to an end. The most important reasons for this were, firstly, the high costs of military warfare that were difficult to sustain, because the Netherlands was in an economically difficult situation after WWII, and secondly, because of international pressure against colonial warfare (Groen, 1994: 30). Thousands of Dutch soldiers and tens of thousands of Indonesians lost their lives during this war (Spruyt, 2005: 146).
Although there was no economic advantage or increased security in regaining control over Indonesia, the Dutch government was convinced that the colonial authority had to be restored (Spruyt, 2005: 56). The government created an image of the revolution in Indonesia as if it was the work of Japanese intriguers and Indonesian collaborators who had
23
manipulated the gullible masses through propaganda and terrorism. Under British pressure negotiations on the treaty of Linggadjati started. These negotiations were about gradual, limited decolonization. The Netherlands wanted to create a federal Indonesian state, which could be granted with independence, but remained part of a Netherlands-Indonesian Union (Groen, 1994: 31). These negotiations on the treaty of Linggadjati stranded in a deadlock and the Dutch government had to choose between abandoning the territories or military intervention (Groen, 1994: 32). The government chose the latter, and in July 1947 the military offensive began. Within the Netherlands, the war in Indonesia was explained as a necessary action against rebels who were causing unrest. Police actions were deemed necessary to restore order (Jansen Hendriks, 2014: 367).
Television was by the grand public perceived as a reliable medium, while the
government deliberately used colonial films as propaganda (Jansen Hendriks, 2014: 14). The films that were broadcasted on national television from 1946 were focused on the good and constructive work that the Dutch did in Indonesia, and the soldiers were portrayed as
“ambassador of the good work” (Jansen Hendriks, 2014: 363). A self-image of the Netherlands was created as a peaceable country, that tried to help her colonies to independence, without any imperiousness or self-interest (Jansen Hendriks, 2014: 367). Moreover Japan was in the 1940’s often portrayed as an aggressor that oppressed Indonesia. Posters that were made in order to convince the public of the necessity to ‘liberate’ the Dutch Indies show an image of a unity between the Netherlands and Indonesia, that is threatened by the Japanese (See appendix 2). The government
deliberately anticipated on the national sentiment of the Dutch as resistance fighters. By associating the Indonesian call for independence with Japanese domination, the Dutch youth was pushed to contribute to defend the national pride and ‘liberate’ Indonesia. The Indonesian resistance was seen as collaborators with the Japanese and thus military action against these people was condoned (Mason, 1999: 94).
24
Chapter 5: History Education 1950 - 1970
This chapter, together with the chapters 6 and 7, will provide an answer to the sub question ‘What is the “Dutch collective memory” of the decolonization of Indonesia in the field of education?’. This chapter focusses on the developments between 1950 and 1970.
The social developments around the history on decolonization are addressed, with the aim to give an impression of the social state of affairs around this topic. This provides an insight in the social dynamics surrounding this history within the Dutch community during this time period. This is followed by a description of the developments of the curricula within this time period. And finally, an analysis of the schoolbooks is provided on the portrayal of the history of decolonization of Indonesia. A list of the books that are analyzed within the chapters 5, 6 and 7 can be found in the appendix.
Social awareness of the decolonization, between 1950 and 1970
In the first decades after the decolonization little was published or publicly spoken about the colonial past (Bijl, 2012: 445). The government, and especially the Ministry of Defense actively handled a policy to cover up what had happened in Indonesia. In 1948, the
committee van Enthoven was assigned to investigate the ‘Zuid Celebes- affaire’. This took place in the period between December 1946 and Februari 1947, when Captain Raymond Westerling and his troops were sent to South Celebes to ‘restore order’. The troops
committed war crimes that killed about 3.500 people (de Volkskrant, 2012). But in 1948, the committee van Enthoven came to the conclusion that Westerling and his men had acted as a result of an emergency situation. There was decided not to continue further investigations (Bank, 1995: 41).
On the 4th and 5th of May the Netherlands commemorates the Second World War. In the decades after the decolonization, the 4th of May, the day of national commemoration of the dead, was only focused on the victims of WWII, soldiers who had fallen in Indonesia were not commemorated, to the disappointment of many Indies veterans (van Ooijen & Raaijmakers, 2012: 469 and Scagliola, 2007: 248). The focus of the brave and heroic deeds of a small group of resistance fighters, enabled the Dutch society to cherish an illusion of collective resistance against the Nazi’s(Scagliola, 2007: 247).
In this time period, the government succeeded in repressing the image that the Netherlands had committed atrocities in Indonesia. High government and military officials
25
had the incentive to silence the history of violence because the government knew about the war crimes that were committed. Their powerful position enabled them to conceal this information from the grand public. The aim was the restore the national pride and unity that the Netherlands was lacking after the Second World (Scagliola, 2007: 247). As chapter 3 has shown, the government holds a dominant position within the field of education, in creating the content for history education. Through the development of the history curriculum the government can emphasize elements that are deemed to be important by the government officials that create this. In this time period the government had the incentive not to acknowledge the war crimes that were committed in Indonesia.
With their powerful position in the field of education, the government managed to include their preferred portrayal of the history of decolonization in teaching materials. The
government influences not only teachers in their design of education, but also for instance the supposedly neutral commission that created the canon. In fact, the government has a great influence on the perspective that is conveyed in schools, and is thus transmitted to the cultural capital of children. This has a lasting effect on the collective memory of the Dutch public on the history of decolonization in Indonesia.
Developments in the history curriculum, 1950 - 1970
In 1967 a ‘doelstellingenrapport’ (a report on learning objectives) was published, which lead up to the ‘Rijksleerplan’ (national curriculum) in 1968. This was the first national
implementation of history education, in the still pillared Dutch society. It was controversial to create a national curriculum in the divided country of the Netherlands. The instructions for history education remained general, leaving al lot of space for the teacher to determine what subject material would be suitable for his students (Bauer et al, 2002: 427 and
Wilschut, 2011: 11). The main controversies surrounding the development of the
Rijksleerplan was the inclusion of contemporary history. Before the 1960’s there was very
little attention for the contemporary history. Many historians were convinced that history education should be focused on ancient history, because that was supposed to be
explanatory for the contemporary situation. Including contemporary history in the curriculum would distract from the objectives of history as a science, and would create muddled perspectives that are dictated by the issues of the day (Bauer et al, 2002: 427). The final version of the Rijksleerplan was a very broad guideline that left it up to the teacher
26
what he would teach, and how much of the contemporary history would be included (Wilschut, 2011: 11).
This shows that between 1950 and 1970, history was perceived as a science that moves away from contemporary social developments, but merely tries to understand ancient history in order to sustain an academic perspective. The idea that including
contemporary history would be to the bidding of journalists shows that historians were seen as neutral academic actors that shouldn’t interfere with current social developments (Bauer, 2002: 427). This implies that history education was focused on the transmitting of academic knowledge to students who ought to understand ancient history. It seems obvious that in order to transmit academic knowledge to students, the field of education was dominated by people who had a background in academic history. The implied separation between
journalists on the one hand, who presumably were focused on political and contemporary issues, and the community of historians on the other, who focused on the academic research of ancient history, gives us an insight in the needed cultural capital in order to succeed in the field of (history) education. The policy development and implementation was led by leading figures within the field, that all had an academic background. It is their
cultural capital that is at the heart of the rijksleerplan. Presumably they did not consider themselves to be young, since ‘the youth’ are described as different from the academic historic community (Bauer, 2002: 427). Assuming they were older than 25 at the time the
rijksleerplan was presented, they were from an age that had experienced the Second World
War and possibly did their military duty in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Their habitus and cultural capital are shaped by their personal and social memories, and it is their habitus and cultural capital that influences their behavior. Thus, their habitus and cultural capital have influenced the curriculum, school books and classes these actors have created. In the following section we will see what the text books from this time period show about the history of decolonization.
Schoolbooks between 1950 -1970
What is remarkable about a text book that was analyzed from 1951 was that there was no attention for the process of decolonization. In the addressing of the colonial period, there is a strong focus on trade-relation, and the economic importance of the colonies. In the history after 1945, there is solely attention for the Dutch relations with the US, focusing on
27
the Marshall-plan.
In 1964 things have changed. The approach towards decolonization shows a euro-centric perspective. Decolonization is mentioned as part of the chapter on “growing self-consciousness outside Europe”. The independence of Indonesia is described as the official transfer of sovereignty by Queen Juliana, but nothing is mentioned about the conflict that preceded the Indonesian independence.
Moreover, in ‘Wereld in Wording’ from 1964, a very negative image is created of the new Indonesian society. The Indonesian population is described very negatively: “they are unaccustomed to regular work”. The fact that Indonesia was looking for (financial) help outside of NL (USA) is expressed as painful. “Not less than 1/6 of the national wealth is invested in Indonesia”. The new government is described as a corrupt group of people who do not want to acknowledge the debts they have with the Netherlands (Beemsterboer, 1964: 43-44)”
This chapter has shown us that between 1950 and 1970 the conflict in Indonesia is not mentioned within the field of education. Thus, people who were educated in this era have not attributed knowledge about this violent conflict through the school system. Within the 1960’s the underlying message of the schoolbooks matches the ‘colonial perspective’ that was propagated by the government in the late 1940’s.
28
Chapter 6: History Education 1970 – 1990
This chapter aims at providing an understanding of the portrayal of the history of Indonesia between 1970 and 1990. The structure is similar to chapter 4, meaning that it will start with an explanation of the social awareness of the decolonization in this time period, followed by an explanation of the curriculum. Finally the school books from this time period are
addressed.
Social awareness of the decolonization, between 1970 and 1990
In the 1970’s the perspective of a brave and heroic country was tackled. The prestige of the authorities diminished, and journalists became more socially critical. Sensitive topics, such as the extremely high percentage of Jewish people that were deported during the Second World War, were addressed by journalists (Scargliola, 2007: 248). New information was disclosed on the history of decolonization to the general public. In a television show, named
Achter het Nieuws (Behind the News), broadcasted by the VARA on 17January 1969, Joop
Huetink a former combatant stated the following:
“I was deployed in Indonesia for two and a half years as a soldier in the infantry, with roles in the intelligence service among others, and I took part in war crimes. I saw men commit them and want to give you a few examples: villages would be riddled [sic] while no one at the time saw the military exigency. During interrogations suspects would be tortured in the most hideous ways even though there was no evidence this was necessary. Retaliations were organised, again with no clear military urgency (Huetink, as quoted in Scagliola, 2007: 248).”
The television show was scandalizing for the general public, because of the
acknowledgement of the atrocities. The general public was not familiar with this history. Also, the systematic character of the atrocities was perceived as shocking (Scagliola, 2007: 248). Because of the social uproar, there was pressure on the government to respond. There was no large investigation conducted, but at the instance of opposition leader Den Uyl, the government had to create an overview of all excesses conducted by that were conducted by Dutch military personal in Indonesia between 1945 and 1950. It was named the
‘Excessennota’, and was basically an archival inquiry. It did not lead to any legal prosecutions (Bank, 1995: 7).
29
What is quite remarkable about this period is that after the disclosures of
information about the atrocities that were committed, the attention within society faded away within half a year. In 1970 a book was published by two sociologists, Hendrix and van Doorn, who were veterans and wrote a book called ‘Escalation of Violence’. They argue ‘that the excesses occurred much more often than the government wants us to believe (van Doorn & Hendrix, 1970: I).’ However, after the publication of their book, there was hardly any attention from the media, or any social uproar (Scagliola, 2012: 111). This would remain the same until 1987, when a draft-chapter of historicist Lou de Jong leaked to the press. This matter will be described in the following section, because the most recent schoolbook that is analyzed in this section dates from 1987, and thus cannot be influenced by the work of Lou de Jong.
Developments in the history Curriculum 1970-1990
In 1975 a committee on modernizing the curriculum for history and civic education revised the curriculum for history education. There were disputes about its content within the committee and within the public debate. The history education as it was presented in the
rijksleerplan, with a strong separation between history and politics, was put under pressure.
There was a split between those with an institutional approach of history education, and those with a focus on social awareness (de Jong, 2014: 279). The dispute was reinforced by school student uprisings and critical teachers. There was political dissension on the extent to which a teacher could express his or her opinions in the classroom. This was part of a bigger political discussion on the pillared education system in the Netherlands (de Jong, 2014: 282). The pluralistic educational system remained, but the committee had put a stronger emphasis on civic skills and the investigation of research sources. Moreover, the
modernized curriculum emphasized on the importance of an in depth overview of the historic developments of the twentieth century (Wiltschut, 2011: 27). However, this wasn’t specified and it was still up to the teachers and the schoolboard to give substance to the history curriculum. Throughout this time period a cleavage remained within the field of education between a progressive group that wanted power structures and contemporary social situations to be part of children’s education, and more conservative groups that strove to social cohesion through more ancient history (de Jong, 2014: 293).
30
the secondary school. Since then, all graduating student in the Netherlands made the same final exam, and each year a different topic or topics were chosen as the content of the final exam. This means that the students would graduate on a specific history (Wilschut, 2011: 28). The implementation of the final exams led to a political discussion about the objectivity of history and civic education in religious school. Among teacher there was a fear of
imposed cultural policy that could undermine (religious) minorities and pluralism in the school system. The space to give substance to the majority of the curriculum remained important in the Netherlands (de Jong, 2014: 293).
Schoolbooks from the 1970’s – 1990’s
As described in the paragraph on social awareness, information on the atrocities was made public during this time period. However, it did not spark a general discussion. Although the confessions of Joop Huetink and the ‘Excessennota’ did cause some uproar, it only was short-lived. We thus, do not really see the much of the newly revealed information, on the atrocities committed by the Dutch army back in history education.
The language that is used in the 1970’s is remarkable. An example of this is the book from 1970, in which the chapter on decolonization is named: “emancipation of the
colored”. Most of the books only give an overview given of dates of events and conventions, but their meaning is not comprehensively explained, and neither is there any specific
mentioning of violence. The police action are described as ‘actions initiated by the Dutch government to restore law and order, bring back economic life and to prevent robberies of Dutch militaries and companies.’ The rule of Soekarno is described as an communist dictatorship. (Wigman et al. 1970)
However, a text book from 1972 shows a more human perspective. It shows a picture of a tram with the slogan “All People Are Created Equal” painted on it. The word ‘violence’ is used for the first time with reference to the police actions. According to the authors, the police actions triggered ‘critique from the colored world’. Also, ‘Geschiedenis in Thema en Taak’ from 1974 describes the situation of poverty amongst Indonesians during the colonization, but at the same time explain what an afford the Dutch government made in its ‘ethical policy’ to teach the indigenous people to become more self-dependent. The violence that was committed during the police actions was not explained thoroughly, but only mentioned as actions to restore order (Kalkwiek, 1974: 175).
31
The book ‘Geschiedenis van Gisteren’ is remarkable in its description of the conflict. For the first time two different perspectives are shown when Soekarno, the man who proclaimed the Indonesian Independence in 1945, is described as ‘perceived as collaborator with the Japanese’ (Ulrich, 1976: 222). In the 1980’s a school books seem to give more comprehensive accounts of the process of decolonization in general. However, in a school book published in 1985, the excesses of colonialism in general are attributed to Germany as a colonial power (Knigge, 1985: 232).
There is a clear difference between the books from 1950-1960 and 1970-1990. The violence was undiscussed in the former period, while the 1970’s and 1980’s show a gradual change. There is a difference in the approach to the Indonesian perspective in the situation of colonial rule, however, the violence that was committed is hardly discussed, and when it is mentioned it is not explained in detail. Furthermore the portrayal of Indonesian resistance is often explained as guerrilla warfare, and the Dutch military had to stand up against this. Although the revelations, made by Huetink, van Doorn and Hendrix, caused some
resentment in the beginning of the 1970’s, the general public lost their attention relatively soon.
This chapter has given an overview of the developments in history education
between 1970 and 1990, and an analysis of the portrayal of the history of decolonization in the text books. The previous chapter has shown that in the 1950’s there was no attention for the decolonization in Indonesia. Gradually this changed, and in the 1980’s the history was covered in the text books. However, the way in which the decolonization is addressed in the text books is still in line with the way in which the conflict was portrayed by the governments in the 1940’s: namely the Indonesians were not ready for independence, and the atrocities are labelled as ‘police actions’ without any further explanations of what these actions entailed. These history books have given students a ‘colonial understanding’ of the conflict, and has provided them with the cultural capital to assess the war as preferred by the government: the conflict was a military actions to restore order, inwhich the Dutch military had only committed violence in emergency situations. The cultural capital that students have obtained between 1950 and 1990 contributes to the colonial aphasia of which the Netherlands is accused. Within the education system in the Netherlands children did not attribute knowledge over the violent sides of the conflict. Ann Stoler has explained that this lack of knowledge leads to an inability to comprehend what has happened (Stoler,
32
2011: 125). This implies that future generations will have difficulties to obtain this
knowledge, because older generations do not educate them in the conceptual basis of the conflict.
33
Chapter 7. History education 1990-today
In this chapter the development of history education in the last time period, 1990 until today, is discussed. It will start with an explanation of the social awareness of the
decolonization, followed by an account of the developments in the school curriculum. Then the Canon of the Netherlands is highlighted, together with an explanation the ‘Indonesia in the classroom’, which focusses on the way in which the decolonization is addressed in schools. Finally the school books from this period will be discussed.
Social awareness of the decolonization, between 1990 and today
After the discussed turbulence in 1969, the 1970’s and 1980’s remained relatively silent about this matter. In 1987 a draft chapter of a book by historicist Lou de Jong on ‘Dutch War Crimes’ was leaked to the right wing newspaper De Telegraaf by a former colonel in the colonial army who was part of de Jong his advisory group (Scagliola, 2012: 428). The Indies veterans were outraged. As a closing remark he had stated the following:
“There have been war crimes committed on a much larger scale then the government briefing in ’69 suggests and the prosecution and adjudication are in stark contrast with those from the war crimes committed by the Germans and the Japanese (Lou de Jong as quoted in Scagliola, 2002: 227).” [Quote is translated]
These revelations caused upheaval within society, and de Jong received a lot of critique and little support. Moreover he was threatened with legal action by veteran groups (Scagliola, 2012: 428). The government soothed the discussion within society. The prime minister stated that the Dutch military had not committed war crimes, one could only speak of excesses that were due to emergency situations that were beyond the control of the military (Scagliola, 2012: 435).
In the 1990’s there is more upheaval about the matter. The ‘affaire Poncke-Princen’ got a lot of media attention. Mr. Poncke-Princen was a Dutchman who was sent as a soldier to Indonesia. He decided to desert from the Dutch army and he fought for the Indonesian Republic where he later obtained the Indonesian citizenship. In the 1990’s he wanted to visit the Netherlands but initially his visa application was rejected. In the end he was allowed to enter the country, but only on the condition that he would not speak with the press during
