PAPER OPINIONS ON OBJECTS THAT MATTER AN ANALYSIS OF THE DUTCH PRINTED MEDIA COVERAGE REGARDING THE RESTITUTION OF COLONIAL OBJECTS BETWEEN 1950-1995 AND 2015 J.K.T. (Jelle) de Vries, S1661116 Word count:17.880 MA Thesis Global and Colonial History Semester II, 2019-2020, Leiden University Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr. M. (Marieke) Bloembergen Second reader/reviewer: Dr. F.H. (Fenneke) Sijsling Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 6 SCHOLARLY DEBATE ................................................................................................................................................... 7 SHARED OR COLONIAL HERITAGE .................................................................................................................................. 9 NEWSPAPERS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER I: INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (1950 - 1974) .............................................................................. 15 REMAINDER OF AN OLD WORLD ................................................................................................................................. 17 QUIET YEARS .......................................................................................................................................................... 18 A NEW WAY OF WRITING .......................................................................................................................................... 22 OTHER PAPERS WEIGH IN .......................................................................................................................................... 24 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER II: THERE ARE AS MANY OPINIONS AS THERE ARE EXPERTS (1975 – 1995) .................................... 30 YEARS OF RESTITUTION............................................................................................................................................. 31 TAKING IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE .................................................................................................................... 34 A GREEK TRAGEDY .................................................................................................................................................. 37 INCREASINGLY EXPLICIT ............................................................................................................................................ 41 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER III: PALE IN COMPARISON (1978 AND 2015) ................................................................................ 46 THE RETURN OF A RELIC ............................................................................................................................................ 47 IN COMPARISON ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................... 50 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 52 THEORIES ON RESTITUTION, HERITAGE AND POSTCOLONIAL IDENTITY ................................................................................ 52 AGENCY AND NARRATIVE .......................................................................................................................................... 53 ALTOGETHER .......................................................................................................................................................... 54 WEBSITES ................................................................................................................................................. 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix 1 Studied newspaper articles (chronological) ............................................................................... 57 Used abbreviations ANP – het Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau KITLV – Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (Royal Institute for Southeast Asian and Carribean Studies) RCE – Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency) VOC – Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (United East India Company) VU – VU University Amsterdam UL – Leiden University UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UBL – Leiden University Library 2 Acknowledgements When I started out writing this thesis, it quickly became clear to me that this was a part of studying that I would really have to get back into, after spending ten months away from the archives and history books. Firstly, I would like to thank professor Marieke Bloembergen for first, helping me get acquainted with the subject of restitution and colonial heritage, then helping me find an alternative way of doing this research because the archives and museums closed down and for all the very helpful comments and tips that I received. Professor Bloembergen also brought me into contact with dr Jos van Beurden, an absolute expert in the field that pointed out interesting angles and periods for my media study. Thirdly, dr Fenneke Sijsling for thinking with me at the early start of the process and for acting as my second reviewer. Last, but not least, I would like to thank dr Alicia Schrikker, who through my years at Leiden University, first in my bachelor and later in my master, acted as a mentor. Not only, did she teach many courses on colonial history to me, courses that were interesting and challenging and gave me direction in the way of how I wanted to contribute to history writing. But she also helped me land several jobs as a research assistant for historians Maarten Manse, MA, dr Roger Knight, dr Keving Fogg, which helped me to deepen my understanding of the archives and colonial past I was studying. After this she acted as my intern supervisor last year when I interned at the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. Visiting me on the 22th floor, while she has a slight fear of heights. I would like to thank dr. Schrikker for her enthusiasm and guidance in my journey to becoming a historian. 3 Introduction In March of 2020, during a Dutch state visit to Indonesia, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima fulfilled a decades old promise by handing over a kris, an Indonesian dagger, that originally belonged to the Javanese prince Diponegoro. Whom in Indonesia is seen as a national hero for his leadership of the anti-colonial Java War, 1825-1830. Somewhat more than forty years ago, other belongings of the prince had been returned already.1 This relatively small act during the 2020 state visit symbolises the process surrounding the restitution of colonial objects that has been taking place in the Netherlands since the start of the Round Table Conference in 1949. In this debate the Dutch government and its society in general struggle with a colonial past that goes beyond the general notion being a former colonial state. This struggle expresses itself within museums that are institutions built on colonial heritage, within descendants from former colonizers, that now privately own objects or collections from Indonesian origin, within the perception of their monarchy, of which the ruling Orange dynasty was involved in the acquirement of paintings and other cultural objects. This struggle can be uncomfortable and oddly specific, yet it can grow and stretch beyond Dutch society, as a Western struggle. This Western struggle was explained the Dutch historian Niels Matthijssen in De Groene Amsterdammer. In this article the author analysed efforts by Dutch museum directors to play a part in the restitution of certain objects. However, he noted that actual restitution of objects has hardly taken place.2 The process of decolonisation appears to be lengthy and the obvious question seems to be: why did it take the government 45 years to complete this promise, does this have to do with a possible change in the public opinion and how can this development be seen within this general struggle of coming to term with our national, and sometimes deeply personal, colonial past? An example of this struggle between private ownership, national identities and the Dutch colonial past was put into words by cultural anthropologist Lizzy van Leeuwen. In 2016 She wrote an opinion piece for NRC Handelsblad in which she addressed the silent auction of a Raden Saleh painting to 1 Eric Brassem, ‘Nederland geeft ‘verloren’ kris terug aan Indonesië’, Trouw 04-03-2020, https://www.trouw.nl/cultuur-media/nederland-geeft-verloren-kris-terug-aan-indonesie~b8824dcc/