‘I didn’t know what the King was going to say’, says Gert Oostindie, professor emeritus of colonial and post-colonial history, referring to the moment he presented the first copy of one of five books about the colonial history of the House of Orange to Willem-Alexander.
‘I absolutely didn’t want to know in advance what his reaction would be. There had been no influence from the government or the Royal House on our investigation, and I didn’t want to know beforehand what he would say in his speech either.’
Were you surprised about the absence of an apology?
‘No. Based on our research, the King could have said: I apologise for the entire colonial past. But I had no expectations that he would actually do so. However, I was pleased with his reaction to our work: “I embrace it.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that.’
Should such an apology even be made?
‘You could argue that if you go down that road, you might as well go all the way. I’m not going to tell the King what to do of course, and besides, the Prime Minister approves the response in advance. Even if the King wanted to apologise, he would have to take political considerations into account.’
Your calculations show that slavery did not bring the House of Orange much profit.
‘That’s correct, although they did try to profit from it. It’s extremely significant that this has finally been properly investigated. The findings are disappointing for some descendants. They do not believe the figures and see this as a whitewashing operation.
‘I’ve seen some hate mail from people who think we’re using these figures to justify slavery. That is, of course, not the case. The authors of that financial chapter were also concerned that their calculations might be seen as an attempt to justify slavery. Naturally, you want to avoid that. But there is no scientific problem here. You work with the figures you find.’
At the same time, some people have responded that you are judging the House of Orange through a modern lens. What do you think of that?‘
Of course, they were children of their time, but they knew things could be done differently. Part of the elite recognised quite early on that the situation was completely unacceptable. But the House of Orange did nothing about it.
‘And there was always resistance in the colonies. It’s not as if the Africans who were taken from their homelands were fine with that, or that the oppressed Javanese accepted their fate.
‘By requesting this investigation, the King showed moral leadership. It could also alienate him from a section of the population: namely, the far right.’
‘The book comparing the House of Orange with other monarchies shows that all monarchs pursued roughly the same colonial policies. It is possible that there will also be calls for an investigation into the royal families in other countries. That is a complicated situation for our royal family. Suppose King Charles were to confront him about it: “Willem-Alexander, what have you done to us?” However, we were the ones who decided to make that comparison, not the King.’
What did you find most striking about the investigation?
‘That every member of the House of Orange, right up to Juliana, was prepared to use violence without the slightest hesitation to crush unrest in the colonies. I find that shocking. In 1737, Anna of Hanover, the wife of Stadtholder William IV, encouraged a ruthless crackdown on rebellious Maroons (formerly enslaved people who had escaped, Ed.) in Suriname so that “women and children in particular will perish of hunger”. Truly horrific!
‘In 1945, Queen Wilhelmina described her subjects in Borneo – present-day Kalimantan – to the American President Roosevelt as “headhunters”. She said it would take the Dutch another hundred years before they would be able to “educate and civilise” them.
‘About Dutch New Guinea (now Papua), the queen told him that it was home to “the lowest form of human life in the world” and that their “skulls were the least developed”. Incidentally, these remarks had already been documented. Remarkably enough, it is the only explicitly racist remark attributed to a stadtholder or a monarch that we have found.’
You had access to Beatrix’s restricted archives. What stood out to you?
‘Publicly, she presented herself as the patron of the Netherlands Antilles. Behind closed doors, she spoke harshly about what she believed was going wrong there. She also had many confidential conversations with Surinamese and even Indonesian politicians. Why did those people come to talk to her? Because officially, she didn’t have much power. This goes to show that a queen does, in fact, wield influence informally.
‘She was very reluctant to accept criticism of the colonial past. For example, she wanted nothing to do with the national slavery monument in Amsterdam. In the end, she did attend the unveiling in 2002, but it was with little enthusiasm.’
What is the next step?
‘We hope to help advance the debate, steering it towards reconciliation. That will not be easy. Partly in response to this research, there are once again calls for reparations running into hundreds of billions of euros. That’s not going to happen; Prime Minister Jetten also made it clear straight away that there would be no new reparations. And so the tension remains.
‘The fact is, however, that the King is willing to discuss this history openly; hopefully that will help society and the political sphere.’
The research carried out by more than sixty academics for The Colonial History of the House of Orange-Nassau resulted in five books. What should be done with this knowledge? ‘The King has taken the first step, so he should go all the way.’
‘Your findings are unvarnished and penetrating’, responded King Willem-Alexander when he received the research into his family’s colonial history. According to him, the researchers demonstrate that stadtholders and kings actively supported colonialism and slavery, ‘including consent to the suppression of resistance’. In doing so, they bore shared responsibility for its continuation.
He also described the conclusion that the House of Orange, up until Juliana, never used its influence to address colonialism or slavery as ‘poignant and confrontational’. ‘A conclusion that touches me, even though I am from three generations later.’ Willem-Alexander emphasised the importance of acknowledgement: ‘Without acknowledging what happened, we will not move forward.’
No new apologies were offered. Research leader Gert Oostindie also questions whether that would be the logical next step. The previous apologies from the government and the King mainly concerned transatlantic slavery and the extreme violence during the Indonesian War of Independence, both following a clear call for acknowledgement. The King could still speak out about other low points from four centuries of colonial history, but it wouldn’t make much sense to just “tick them all off” one by one.’
Professor Esther Captain, who also took part in the research, would have preferred to see a different gesture. ‘People had hoped that the King might perhaps offer a gesture on behalf of his family. They were hoping for money, in effect.’ According to her, the investigation shows that the family earned half a billion from, amongst other things, the Cultivation System and the Billiton mine. ‘People have also benefited from the unpaid labour of generations of enslaved people. That has never been accounted for. The King could have said: “I’m giving half a billion back.”’
At the same time, Willem-Alexander is a pioneer by international standards, Captain believes. ‘For many descendants, it is not enough, but as a historian I must also say: he is unique in this respect. He is leading the way and has offered apologies.’ That is precisely why she believes there must be a follow-up. ‘In my view, that also entails an obligation. I think that should be followed up.’
Fellow researcher Bart Verheijen also believes that Willem-Alexander could have made a financial gesture. He considers the argument that this would put other royal houses in an awkward position to be ‘a bit weak’. ‘You have to take responsibility. The King has taken the first step by commissioning this investigation, so he should go all the way.’ He suggests a contribution to a slavery museum as a possibility.
Verheijen finds it difficult say what exactly reparations should look like. ‘The modern world is a direct consequence of the world as it was a hundred years ago, and that world was very, very unjust. You would like to see things distributed more fairly in some way. But how? That is a political question that I, as a historian, cannot answer.’
Tristan Mostert expressly wants to keep his distance from that debate. ‘There are so many opinions on reparations. I don’t want them to interfere with the findings of this research.’
Erik Odegard also believes that the research should provide the historical facts for the debate, not determine the outcome. ‘We shouldn’t be the ones leading the charge.’ As for apologies, he agrees with Oostindie. ‘If you start apologising for every individual issue, you run the risk of inadvertently appearing to establish a hierarchy, which could lead to disputes between interest groups: why weren’t we given priority? A holistic approach is entirely justifiable.’
By Vincent Bongers and Marciëlle van der Kraan