The idea that the rich west came to civilize with the abolition of slavery is wrong. There is still a strange idea of ownership in it, say historian Karwan Fatah-Black and anthropologist Markus Balkenhol.
Today (December 2) is International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. Slavery is often described as 'the black page in our history'. That metaphor gives the impression that our slavery past is a defined series of events, which we have left behind. But is that true? What do we actually commemorate when we talk about slavery? And is everyone waiting for a joint commemoration?
These are big questions that few scientists dare to touch. Historian Karwan Fatah-Black and anthropologist Markus Balkenhol want to talk about it. “The fact that slavery is a sensitive subject is such a cliché that we hardly realize how strange it is to say so,” Fatah-Black writes in his recently published book Slavery and Civilization. History of a paradox (2021).
In this article we talk with Balkenhol and Fatah-Black about the way in which people think about slavery in the Netherlands. Although their research is different – Fatah-Black studies history as a historian, Balkenhol looks at our current culture as a social anthropologist – their work has many similarities. Both scientists have great difficulty with the dominant narrative about our slavery past.
Slavery Remembrance
Let us first consider the International Day of Slavery. You would say that slavery researchers Fatah-Black and Balkenhol are happy with such a day, because slavery is brought to the attention of a large audience. Yet they are also critical of this kind of massive commemoration of our slavery past, which has been taking place more and more frequently over the past twenty years, both globally and nationally.
“In the community of descendants, not everyone is waiting for a national commemoration,” says Fatah-Black. “If you take such an activity to a national level, you expose yourself to all kinds of political interests. Various groups will attempt to appropriate the story. That creates a new field of tension.”
“The danger of commemorations is that you view the slavery past as a kind of 'cultural heritage',” says Balkenhol. The risk is that you 'solidify' the past. “By putting something safely behind a display case, you ensure that something stays in the past. You act as if it no longer relates to the present. Making something heritage can also mean making something harmless. The trick is to understand continuity.”
A sensitive topic
And that's where the sensitivity of the subject comes into play. Because it is precisely this 'continuity' that Balkenhol refers to that makes the conversation about slavery such a hot topic.
No one is in favor of slavery, so why do so many people get nervous when it comes to public debate? “I always try to ask the question:what exactly is sensitive?” says Fatah-Black. “When you ask people that question, they often point to the emotions of descendants,” says Fatah-Black. “They forget that white handling of slavery history is also emotionally charged.”
According to Fatah-Black, the real reason why many Dutch people react so sensitively to public discussions about slavery is the following:our Western self-image is being affected. “On the one hand, we believe that slavery was abolished by us in the nineteenth century. Then it is painful to be pointed out that there is continuity between the present and the past. Slavery did not disappear when it was abolished in the nineteenth century.”
The dominant story
The Dutch are raised with a simplified story about the slavery past, according to Fatah-Black. The impression is created that in the nineteenth century there was an abrupt 'turnaround' in thinking about slavery. “The traditional story is:the whole world was engaged in slavery, until the enlightened Europeans suddenly thought it was reprehensible. They have abolished it, and are still trying to end slavery all over the world.”
This dominant story has little to do with historical facts, Fatah-Black describes in his book. First, because criticism of slavery is timeless. That criticism came from those in high places, but especially from those who had to endure slavery. They were able to point out exactly why it didn't work. Second, the story gives the impression that slavery disappeared with the arrival of Western civilization, while according to Fatah-Black slavery is also a product of Western civilization.
“The abolition of slavery is not a radical break, but a curious continuation of the idea that we – the Western world – are coming to bring civilization,” says Fatah-Black. “First we civilized through slavery, now we say:we are the ones who accomplished the abolition. The story remains the same:our governance leads to freedom and civilization.”
The past continues
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
So there has been no sudden shift from a world that was for slavery to a world that turned against it. Of course something has changed, says Fatah-Black:“Slavery as an institution has been banned worldwide. That is a huge step for humanity. Let's not downplay that. But we also have to keep an eye on continuity.” The official abolition did not end all slavery, nor did the mentality behind it.
Now, he says, too little attention is paid to that. “When you see slavery as an unthinkable evil that our ancestors eradicated long ago, its survival becomes difficult to discuss,” Fatah-Black says. He cites the discussion about football in Qatar as an example, where at least 6,500 people were killed during work for the 2022 World Cup, and where migrant workers are still killed.
"The way Ronald de Boer, the ambassador of the World Cup, spoke about this sounds like the nineteenth century defenders of slavery," says Fatah-Black. “De Boer says:those workers come from a bad situation, and things don't go well right away, but thanks to our presence they do have a job. We should recognize that discourse. And have to distance themselves from it.”
Ownership
According to Fatah-Black and Balkenhol, many historians have been tempted to repeat one story over and over:the perspective of the former owner who accomplished the abolition. “You can see that, for example, in the work of my fellow historian Piet Emmer,” says Fatah-Black. “He literally says that slavery has been abolished by genteel white gentlemen. They sacrificed themselves for that and we should celebrate that.”
While no one will yet defend that we can make people property, the dominant narrative of our slavery past still carries a misguided idea of ownership, according to Fatah-Black. “The wealthy West appropriates the story of 'the abolition of slavery' by repeating that this is the work of the government and former owners. They received compensation. Those who lived in slavery were re-educated through Christian education. They had to work another ten years to learn what it's like to be a productive citizen.”
In discussions about slavery, it should really be about the problematic aspects of ownership, Fatah-Black believes. “Maybe we should put slavery a little less central, and examine and question the mindset of ownership.” According to him, that mentality has not disappeared with the abolition of slavery.
Balkenhol takes it a little further:“It is not self-evident that certain people have a right to property, or that people have a right to property at all. We treat the planet as if it were our property, and we can do with it whatever we want. That idea, that raw materials are available to us, is also a colonial idea.”
“In Europe, there is a dominant notion in which 'the European' is presented as compassionate, someone who shows compassion for the weak,” says Balkenhol. “There is a desire to solve the world's problems and to elevate other people. In this way you create a subordinate identity:the other person is someone who needs help, and even has to be grateful. The idea of a 'we' as the driving force in history, and determining the fate of the world, still exists and continues in development cooperation and the way corona vaccines are now distributed.”
Economic interests
The Netherlands has been struggling for some time with the colonial collections in Dutch museums. A partnership of universities and museums received a subsidy of 3.5 million euros last year to conduct large-scale research into what should be done with objects from colonial collections. The program Pressing Matter:Ownership, Value and the Question of Colonial Heritage in Museums is chaired by professors Susan Legêne and Wayne Modest of the Free University.
Facts alone are not enough for new stories about the slavery past to sink in. According to Balkenhol, we need to think differently about the question 'what is history'. According to him, the big question is:whose history does it belong to? “There is not one story about slavery,” he says. Of course, sometimes we have to limit ourselves to a story or perspective; it goes wrong if we then pretend that's the whole story.
“And there are also simply tough interests at play,” says Balkenhol. “Some people have an interest in maintaining the status quo. It is not only about knowledge, but also about money and power.” Fatah-Black also points out economic interests in his book:'What remains of a museum collection if the looted colonial treasures have to be returned to the country of origin?'
According to Balkenhol, which stories are heard is the outcome of 'continuous negotiation'. “Power relations are always involved that ensure that a certain perspective is dominant.”
Is it possible to conduct a 'neutral' research on this? “I am regularly attacked by people who say that I am not doing scientific research,” says Balkenhol. According to him, this criticism is based on a wrong idea of science. “Science does not expose an immutable truth. Of course a historian uses sources, and an anthropologist has ethnographic data. But facts are also always interpretations.”
Science means that you do not constantly repeat those dominant stories, but rather question them. “There are dominant stories that can also be told differently. If you include new facts, you get a more complete picture. But the picture is never quite complete. There will never be a point where we say:now we're done, we can abolish history."