WE EXPOSE HISTORY BOOKS

“Judging by the curricula at various levels, from grade school to university level, it is the best-kept secret that the Netherlands has been a formidable imperial nation (Wekker, 2016). “
This quote of Gloria Wekker describes that conscious silence about the Dutch colonial past. It is a silence that I am now finally starting to hear. The quote represents how a colonial discourse is still strongly present through the subject history as it is currently taught in high schools in the Netherlands. However, things seem to be changing, slowly but surely. I am not the only one that is trying to continue the debate about the need for change in the Dutch curricula and school systems. Scholars now call for methods which expose students to a multitude of perspectives, rather than uphold a curriculum which teaches them to see through the eyes of privileged white European males (Klein,2010).

The Dutch connection to slavery in particular is now being seen as significant. More people are willing to become aware of the fact that slavery formed a cornerstone of Dutch society. But although there have been attempts to free education from the colonial discourse, it’s influence remains widespread. School materials fail to acknowledge the cruel colonial past , so never mind addressing the topics of how white privilege and power came to exist and continues to feed the colonial perspective and belief system as universally applicable. Teachers find it difficult to talk about these topics or even refuse, to discuss slavery in the classroom (Mok, 2011).

This lack of a certain historical perspective means that today students are still at risk of developing ethnocentric, single minded interpretations of historical events. Thus, being encouraged to maintain a colonial discourse and with that enabling existing inequalities. Formal education is an important site of learning and as such on your development. For decades scholars have argued that learning, identity and agency are inextricably linked (Morrice, 2011). It is through various ways of learning that the self is created, and the identity is shaped.

Mok (2011) provides a detailed analysis of how the topic of slavery is discussed at secondary schools in Amsterdam. He finds that the content dedicated to the topic of slavery in Dutch textbooks is very limited and that teachers are very reluctant to discuss the topic, with one in nine teachers refusing to do so at all. Mok (2011) has contributed significantly to uncovering the conscious silence surrounding the topic of slavery. However, she does not provide the information of the way in which slavery is discussed in the school materials and in the classroom. Klein’s (2010) exploratory study with five teachers gained him insight into their goals and beliefs about teaching history. It led him to conclude that the history teachers involved share a critical approach to history and try to incorporate pluralist perspectives. However, Klein mentioned himself that his research is not exactly an accurate representation of the variety of schools and teachers in the Netherlands. Since the teachers he interviewed all worked in a multicultural classroom.
In this essay I would like to first sketch how the average history class is given in the Dutch secondary education; what books are being used and what those teach. I will also show some examples from the school books and expand what the effects of these lesson are to the students. This way this essay will be a first step to a meaningful research for my publication and will be a stepping stone to figuring out how to change the current situation.

Whether you are a VMBO, HAVO or VWO student, at one point in your school career you get to choose if you continue with the subject history or if you drop it. Across all three levels, there are four that could be used to teach History: Feniks, Memo, Sprekend Verleden and Geschiedeniswerkplaats which I will refer to as sources.

Let us first start with the students that do get to study these books. Dutch society consists of large minority cultures from the Dutch Antilles, Suriname, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco and other Western and non-Western citizens. Until 2000, the growing diversity of Dutch society knew little resistance (Klein, 2011). This changed drastically after 9/11 and the murder of Pim Fortuyn. After his assassination people seemed to be doubtful on the compatibility of Dutch culture and the Islam. With this came the question what Dutch national identity really is. As Gloria Wekker (2016) writes: “Belonging to the Dutch nation now demands that those features that the collective imaginary considers non – Dutch – such as language, an exotic appearance, outlandish dress and convictions, non – Christian religions, the memory of oppression – are shed as fast as possible” (7, 2016). These changes in political discourse also effected the field of pedagogy, in particular for the History curriculum (Gever and Stuurman, 2007)

Politicians and policy makers became more heavily involved in the creation of the national history curriculum, as History was regarded as a valuable instrument to bolster national identity and to integrate immigrant communities (Grever and Stuurman 2007). The canon method got created which offers a list of fifty different topics, each corresponding to an important person or an event which will shed light on ‘their’ period in history. However, this canon method got heavily critiqued. According to Jonker (2006): “The canon is a closed narrative revolving around Dutch continuous values, ignoring certain pasts that could and should be taught in a multicultural society. The ministerial committee acknowledged that perhaps the canon did mirror national identity but argued that it did not promote a single national narrative as it included topics as black slavery and imperialism (14,2006).
The method for teaching history is the chronological one. This is the way I have been taught at high school with the book “Sprekend verleden”. For this method, a chronological framework of ten distinctive eras was devised, and historical developments are to be studied within each separate era, or time unit (Rooy, 2011). This chronological approach also came under fire for applying a Eurocentric historical narrative, which did not encourage critical interpretation (Geschiedenis Examineren 2006). Despite these various criticisms, the curriculum was implemented in 2007.

The chronological and canon methods are the most widely used methods for teaching History today. Both methods discuss slavery. In the canon method, slavery is one of the fifty topics and within the chronological method, slavery belongs to the 7th time unit, entitled ‘Wigs and Revolutions,’ which corresponds to the 18th and 19th century. Neither one of the approaches leaves much room for different interpretations or perspectives. This way of teaching History, doesn’t encourage students to understand that there are always multiple, often competing, perspectives on historical trends and events.

There is a conscious silence surrounding the Dutch colonial past, and in particular the Dutch enslaved trade. Research conducted by Mok (2011) as well and Grever and Stuurman (2007), show that overall, teachers in the Netherlands are reluctant to discuss slavery in the classroom. In fact, Mok (2011) found that one in nine teachers find “the topic too sensitive to discuss,” or that they “…would rather not rehash such horror stories (Mok, 2011)”. Van Stipriaan (2015) researched teacher’s attitudes towards slavery in more detail. He found that many “were tired of that story (2015)” or found it “too sensitive an issue to discuss in an ethnically diverse classroom (2015).” This is also a good example of how more powerful groups, in this case teachers, currently play a role in shaping the public discourse; maintaining or not acknowledging a colonial discourse through their unwillingness to discuss the Dutch colonial past. Teachers are currently keeping a colonial discourse in place by suppressing another.

The silence surrounding slavery is also reflected in the four textbooks used to teach History. A detailed study by Jans (2017) found that twenty percent of Dutch History school books contain no mention of slavery. Each of the four textbook methods mentioned above do not dedicate more than three pages to slavery. If teachers are unwilling or reluctant to discuss the topic, and slavery it is hardly mentioned in the materials offered to students, it is safe to say that students are unlikely to understand slavery as an important or even relevant topic. Or maybe even worse, a taboo topic, they are not ‘allowed’ to discuss.

But when they do discuss the topic there is so much wrong with it. It is done in a way that unarguably feeds the colonial discourse even fatter. the four textbooks offered to students all portray enslaved as inhuman. These are largely barbaric, uncivilised portrayals, where the experiences of enslaved are delegitimized as meaningless.
There are a number of discursive strategies through which this process of dehumanization is accomplished. The first is describing them as a commodity, as part of an economic endeavour. To start, in each of the four school books there is world map showing the trade routes of the Dutch colonialist. Next to the African continent it reads: ‘slaves, ivory, gold’. In Feniks and Memo, abstract facts and numbers describing slavery are given, without any additional information. They write for example that: “The Netherlands brought 500.000 Africans to America (Feniks, 53, 2007).” Another example in which the enslaved are described as a commodity, reducing them to objects, rather than humans: “A triangle emerged between Europe, Africa and America. Europe supplied the necessary weapons and Africa supplied the necessary slaves. (Geschiedeniswerkplaats, 82, 2009).

Slavery is also often described in terms of ‘losses’ and ‘profits’, for example:
“The enslaved trade was less profitable than expected. The profit margins of the enslaved transport in the 18th century only added up to two, sometimes three percent. (Feniks, 72, 2007)”
For me, these examples show exactly how the Dutch are distancing themselves from this past. They describe the enslaved as part of the economy; as commodities; completely marginalising their experiences. This is written unattached from human emotions and this will encourage the pupils to see enslaved people as trade commodities rather than humans with pain and suffering.
The other discursive strategy employed is the ‘Othering’ process of the enslaved. They do this mostly by describing them as a different species or even as animals. For example, the words ‘slave’ and ‘person’ or ‘slaves’ and ‘people’ are rarely interchanged. In many instances the word black is used synonymously for enslaved, or animal, reproducing stereotypical images and perpetuating racism. These next examples show this clearly: “The voyageurs wondered if the dark-skinned creatures were people or animals (Geschiedeniswerkplaats, 54, 2009).” And, “At first these unknowing creatures did not know how to respond to their visitors (Feniks, 56, 2007).”

These examples clearly show how they have dehumanized the enslaved through their description as creatures but also how they describe the colonizers. When they talk about the enslaved they often put them next to themselves as the voyageurs, the visitors or the civilized people. The enslaved are not just associated with difference, but rather with threat, deviance and inferiority. Emotions, family ties or African culture are not given any attention at all in those couple of pages. In all four of the books, the enslaved are stereotypically shown as barbaric. For example, in Fenix, there is a picture of a group of enslaved people who have managed to escape and then take over a plantation. The enslaved are portrayed as extremely violent, almost crazy: and are not showing any emotions the student might identify with, whereas the faces of the plantation owners show fear or dread, human emotions a young person can easily identify with.

By excluding the voices, stories and experiences of the enslaved and portraying them continuously as barbarians, as the inferior ‘Other’, their discourse is rendered meaningless. Instead a colonial discourse is implanted amongst young students, in which black people are considered unworthy of attention. When they do receive attention, it is negative. This is often directly contrasted to the white, civilized, voyageurs. Inequality between races is being implicitly taught at schools.
What all of this is doing as well is framing the Dutch colonial powers as innocent. Examples in which white colonial power is being portrayed as innocent are: “The leaders of the Enlightenment fought against the torture of prisoners, war, witch hunts and slavery (Sprekend Verleden, 67, 1999).” And “Slavery was not a European invention. In Africa people had been dealing in slavery for centuries (Feniks, 52, 2007).”

These are small but powerful examples of how the colonialists are framed as innocent, or even as heroes! There are more examples in which they even try to diminish the traumatic events that actually took place while colonizing a new land. With these they completely downplay the mass murders, rapes and invasions which are recorded as such in history. “The native population did not always agree with the arrival of the Europeans…often a couple of canon shots were enough to persuade them to cooperate (Sprekend Verleden, 74, 1999).”

Our process of knowing something or discussing it meaningfully is guided by institutions, like schools. This reluctant attitude about discussing slavery is not only seen by the teachers. two of the authors were questioned by van Stipriaan on their description of the enslaved and the colonial times, to which Jan – Wolter Smit, author of Feniks replied with: “VWO students ought to have the appropriate skills to understand that these depictions are part of the 18th – century mentality (Van Stipriaan, 23, 2007)” and Leo Dalhuisen, author of Sprekend Verleden, argues that: “Historians are not here to teach good and evil, we’re here to formulate the materials in a manner that students will understand” (Van stripriaan, 23, 2007). The authors and teachers are thus prioritizing a white colonial experience and marginalising a postcolonial discourse. So, if a slavery discourse is not formalized at schools, will it ever gain the attention it deserves?

With this essay I have attempted to get a better understanding of what is actually being taught in school. After these findings I have been left with more questions surrounding the silence. Education is not the only place we learn. We learn at home and we learn from the media, so why is it still so silent there? Why are we not talking about the past and the lasting effects of the colonial past on today’s society?

Reference

Dalhuisen, L. e.a. Sprekend Verleden Geschiedenis Tweede Fase 5 VWO (Baarn 1999)
Grever, M. and Siep Stuurman, eds. Beyond the canon: History for the twenty-first century. Springer, 2007.
Jans, R. "slavernij in het onderwijs. De invloed van het publieke en politieke debat over het slavernijverleden op lesmethodes." (2017).
Jonker, Ed. "Op eieren lopen. Canonvorming met een slecht geweten." Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 121 (2006): 76-92.
Klein, S. "Teaching history in The Netherlands: Teachers' experiences of a plurality of perspectives." Curriculum Inquiry 40.5 (2010).
Rooy, P. de. "Voorbij de verzuiling?." BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review 116.1 (2001): 45-57.
Van Geugten, Tom, M. van Riessen, and D. Verkuil. "Geschiedeniswerkplaats. Onderbouw. Informatieboeken. Havo/vwo 2." (2009).
Van Stipriaan, Alex. "Disrupting the canon: The case of slavery." Beyond the canon. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2007. 205-219.
Venner, J. en Maria van Haperen red. Feniks, Overzicht van de geschiedenis. Geschiedenis voor de tweede fase (Utrecht/Zutphen 2007).
Wekker, G. White Innocence: Paradoxes of citizenship. Duke University Press (2016).
Wilschut, A. H. J., et al. "Geschiedenis examineren. Rapport pilotproject CHMV-examen geschiedenis havo 2006." (2006).