Fabian Gomes Monteiro
Criminal Minds
08-02-2012
The abolition of slavery in the Netherlands
A sign of civilising aspirations?

Author: Fabian Gomes Monteiro
Course: Criminal minds, OZS III
Professor: Willemijn Ruberg
Date: 08 Feb. 12
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Outline
Introduction
Slavery……………………………………………………………………………………………………...........page 3
Research questions...............................................................................................page 4
Methodology.........................................................................................................page 5
Terminology..........................................................................................................page 6
Chapter I Norbert Elias’s civilisation process
Civilisation, a theory………………………………………………………………………………………….page 7
State formation....................................................................................................page 8
Chapter II Slavery and empathy
The origin of the abolition, sentiments and human reason……………….…………....page 10
The economic importance of the Dutch slave trade………………………………………..page 11
Chapter III The Dutch abolition
Late abolition…………………………………………………………………………………………………..page 14
The Dutch abolition movement………………………………………………………………….…...page 16
Chapter IV Freedom and servitude
The emancipation of freed slaves…………………………………………………………………...page 21
The aftermath of abolition..................................................................................page 24
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………..….page 26
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..............................page 28
2
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
This bachelor thesis is dedicated to everyone who is interested in the history of mankind.
Introduction
Slavery
Slavery is a widely known term. Humans have been subjected to slavery or have been slave
keepers for over six thousand years.1 Since the first civilisations rose up in southern Iraq,
mankind has tended to execute power over one another and so slavery came in to being.2
Empires and kingdoms throughout known history had slavery embedded in their society. Not
always did a slave suffer from bad living conditions, there are many accounts of slaves who
had good living conditions and some form of responsibility. Sometimes they had to take care
of the household, some taught the children in skills they possessed, it all depended on the
time and place they were living in and the master they had to obey.3
Slavery, to put it in simple words, has been a part of human life since the dawn of human
civilisation.
In the Netherlands abolition came late, namely in 1863. The Dutch now regard this
date with some feelings of shame, because they were one of the last western countries to
abolish slavery. Nowadays, every acceptable high school curriculum includes the slavery past
of west-European states. However, the slavery past of west-European states is such a small
period in history when slavery was a common practise. People tend to see slavery as the bad
doings of European powers who exploited the African continent for their most valuable
resource; the strong workforce. Many lay people have this idea of western European states
being the first societies who depended on slavery for economic stability and development.
As pointed out above, this was not the case; humans have conducted slavery since the dawn
of civilised communities.
The abolition of this human phenomenon called slavery is therefore a very interesting
and a unique occurrence in history. This research will focus on the abolition of slavery in the
Netherlands, a country which has played a substantial role in the transatlantic-slave trade.
1
T. Noble, Western Civilization, beyond boundaries ( Belmont 2010) 20.
M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, the birth of a prison ( New York 1979) 195-228.
3
K. Bradley, The Cambridge world history of slavery (Cambridge 2010) 30.
2
3
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Although it was first abolished by western nations only, it was the genesis of a world-wide
abolition movement. Why did it become abolished? What became of these economies that
heavily depended on slavery as a means of lucrative business? What did the civilians of these
societies think of the abolition of slavery, how did they view slavery in the first place? All of
these questions are very interesting, and some of them have not yet been answered.
Although these questions deserve attention and the right amount of research, they will not
be the core questions around which this work is built.
Why this subject deserves much attention is arguable, some people are in debate
which each other about the extent of cruelties slavery encapsulated. Some say it was not as
harsh as most believe while others state it was an inhumane occupation. The reason why
this research has materialised is a simple one; I am curious if this abolition of slavery is a sign
of human progress in the sense that the abolition led to a more developed society with more
regard to humane norms and values, or if this is all a façade and certain interests were the
reason for the abolition of slavery in the Netherlands?
Research questions
The sociologist Norbert Elias has created an elaborated theory on the way human societies
develop to be more civilised. In his book The civilising process he explains his theory on the
ongoing process which brings mankind in more civilised states. This paper shall test his
theory.
Is the abolition of slavery a sign of this civilising process? To answer this question a detailed
insight in Elias´s theory is needed. After discussing his theory in the first chapter, the focus of
this paper shall shift to the public opinion of the Dutch citizens. The upper and middle class
will be included. Chapter two discusses what the Dutch people thought of the slave trade
and if they were aware of the economic advantages in encapsulated? The limited availability
of sources will impact the research of this paper on Dutch citizens. Most primary sources
such as pamphlets as well as secondary sources focus on the urban citizens. Therefore, a
huge part of the Dutch citizens, mostly those who lived in the countryside or who are not
familiar with the slave trade, will have to be excluded in the research. The next question I
will pose, in chapter three, is: why did it become abolished at such a late date? For it is
known that France abolished it in 1794 and the British abolished slavery in 1833. The last
question I will pose is: what happened to the freed Africans in the Dutch colonies and how
4
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
did western nations continue to approach freed slaves and their native continent? This will
be discussed in chapter four. All the questions shown above will aid this paper to answer the
main question of this research; to what extent does the abolition of slavery in the
Netherlands on 1 July 1863 support Elias’s civilisation theory?
The hypothesis concerning this research question is one which denounces the
civilisation theory of Norbert Elias as a clarification as to why slavery got abolished.
Economic interests or disinterests have had to play an important role in the abolition, as well
as the political ambitions of foreign and domestic actors alike. What was to become of these
freed slaves after they had attained freedom? Was there any form of emancipation or were
they left on their own? To answer these questions I have to study the emancipation of the
slaves in the Netherlands as well. If they were not treated well or even lived in more
abominable conditions, it would make Elias’s civilisation theory less plausible. This would
mean that humanitarian beliefs were not the foundation of the abolition movement,
because these beliefs would imply that an improvement in the living conditions of the freed
slaves is the purpose of this abolition. For, if the abolition of slavery is viewed as a
supporting factor to his theory, but the abolition did not lead to a better quality of living for
the freed ones and a more humanitarian society, this abolition will not support this theory.
Methodology
The methodology I will use to analyse primary sources will be Michel Foucault’s discourse
analysis. Discourse analysis has a blurry meaning. (I hope to contribute to a better
understanding of this methodology with the following paragraph).
Discourse analysis is historical method which gives insights in the creation of
identities and how people approached one another in different social spheres. By
deconstructing a texts, and putting the focus on language which tries to describe certain
social relations or spheres one can discover many societal and cultural structures and
notions which were not known before. In his book Surveiller et Punir (Discipline and Punish)
Michel Foucault uses language to identify the several discourses which were present in pre
‘modern’ western society. These discourses were simply the ways people looked at their
surroundings, and how they perceived certain phenomena in their cultural sphere.
Although the previous paragraph was a brief summary of the meaning of discourse
analysis, it will help to get an understanding of the way I will approach certain sources. The
5
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
primary sources which I will use extensively are written accounts of Dutch parliament
meetings. These record, when analysed, give a good perspective on the way the Dutch elite
viewed slavery, as well as the Dutch public influence concerning the abolition of this matter.
Knowledge of both social classes is crucial for the proper understanding of how the Dutch
abolition took place.
Terminology
The discussion surrounding the use of the right terminology in regard to this
historiographical topic has led to the adoption of some new terms. To put emphasis on the
fact that the transatlantic slavery was involuntary, some researchers have claimed that it is
better to speak of the enslaved instead of slaves. This linguistic difference makes it clear that
the free Africans were made to slaves by force, not that they were born a slave or that they
just chose to be a slave. Instead of a plantation owner some prefer to use the term enslaver.
Some researchers even wish to abolish the word plantation, because this word would be
associated with exotic and romantic feelings. These scholars prefer the term ‘work camp’.
Many of these new terms in a sense support a more politically correct view on this chapter
in western history.
It is however important to emphasise the value of some of these old terms. They are
in some ways conclusive to understanding the slavery, its institutions, and the power
relations that were present between these different groups involved. I prefer to use the
term freed Africans as opposed to freed slaves. The use of the word black or blacks, leads to
an anachronistic view upon this period of time. This word has a twentieth-century American
connotation, which I prefer not to use.4
In this essay however, I will use both terminologies. I will use the politically correct
one, as well as the old terminology. Usage of the word enslaved will emphasise the harsh
conditions in which the African slaves lived. And the word ´slave´ will be used to identify the
plantation economy, and the role of the African in it.
Chapter I
Norbert Elias’s civilisation process
4
G. Gerstle, American Crucible: race and nation in the twentieth century (Princeton 2001) 6.
6
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Civilisation, a theory
Norbert Elias has created a complex theory about the development of societies. He has
studied many societies, from which the first date from around 1400.5 His theory claims that
there is a broad trend that includes the ever stricter control on impulses, drives and
emotions. He described this civilisation process as ´an ongoing growth in personal shame
and embarrassment regarding our animalistic nature´.6 This animalistic nature includes the
bowl movement, sexuality, and our bodies. According to Elias, the only way human beings
can survive is by benefiting from the mutually dependent relationships which humans have
with one another. With these mutual dependent relations, humans give description to their
own identity and their surroundings. When these relations change, the identity of people as
well as their surroundings will eventually change. 7 Elias compares these processes which are
in line with each other as a kind of dance.8 “One can certainly speak of a dance in general,
but no one will imagine a dance as a structure outside the individual or as a mere
abstraction”. 9 This eternal dance creates an entwined corpus which constitutes out of the
micro sociological aspects, namely the individual, and macro sociological aspects, such as
societal structures. Both sociological aspects must be seen as unified whole, but having a
different role within the same atmosphere.
By investigating human habits from the beginning of the late Middle Ages until the
1930s Elias tries to prove his thesis. His study of these so called etiquette books, manuals on
proper behaviour, led to the discovery of a huge change in these proper behaviours over the
course of time. 10 The way people ate, slept, had sex, took a bath and controlled there bodily
gasses had changed dramatically from the middle ages until the 1930s. The conclusion Elias
drew from this obvious change was that there became more restrictions and control on the
performance of human habits such as the ones described above. This change penetrated
both the private sphere as well as the public sphere. 11 Elias’s biggest argument was that this
process of change did not come from a top down approach nor a grass root approach, it was
5
E. Norbert, The civilizing process, The history of manners( Oxford 1978) 21.
Norbert, The civilizing process, 123.
7
Ibidem, 17.
8
Ibidem, 262.
9
Ibidem, 262
10
Norbert, The civilizing process, 131.
11
J. Goudsblom, Het regime van de tijd( Amsterdam 1997) 12.
6
7
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
the result of the manifested ‘’dance’’. This change in human habits, Norbert claims, is a
closed circuit, which leads to an ever more civilised society, hence, the civilization theory.
Behaviour which was viewed as proper during the Middle Ages, gradually became more
controlled and eventually taboo. 12 At first the prohibitions were given their force through
appeals not to offend others, on purely social grounds. This process of civilization also can be
applied on emotions, violence and sexuality. Here too there has been a successive stricter
control of emotions, violence and sexuality. The overt display of emotions including; anger,
hatred, joy and celebration became less frequent from the Middle Ages until the 1930s. The
conclusion is that in the 1930s people performed more conditioned habits then in the
Middle Ages, making the former society more civilized. If cruelty, violence and hatred were
being regarded with more shame, could it be said that the abolition of slavery in the
Netherlands is an aspect or a buttress of this civilisation process?
State Formation
Elias’s civilisation theory also included an elaborate theory on state formation, being a part
of this civilising process. He has put together the macro-sociological features of state
formation with the micro-sociological consequences of this process. 13 By this he argues that
social practices and state structures are intertwined and have to be viewed as a symbiosis.
These consequences were simply the effects the evolution of the modern state had on social
practices. To conserve public order, state institutions and social practices both play a crucial
role. They both have the ability to translate legal authority into daily practices and are
therefore essential to safeguard public order.
Another important aspect of state formation and the maintenance of order is the
increasing monopoly of physical force obtained by the state. By studying the history of
France and the rise of its “modern” state, Elias saw two phases which eventually led to the
acquiring of the monopoly of physical force by the state. The first phase is characterized by
an increased number of people who lose access to the means of force. The ability to exercise
12
13
Ibidem, 59.
E. Norbert, The civilizing process, state formation and civilization (Oxford 1994) 448.
8
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
force steadily became a matter of the state.14 The second phase is characterised by an
increase of public influence, concerning the monopoly of the physical force. The monopoly
moves from the hands of the ruling elite into the hands of the public. The political
framework of the legal system and the appointed leaders now have the monopoly of
physical force, but they are under control of the (democratic) public.15
The first stage of the monopoly formation is placed within hegemonies and their way
of governing. The second stage is visible within a democratic government. According to Elias;
the change in both stages symbolises the end of the ancient regime and the rise of the
nation state. This process of state formation goes beyond the exercise of violence, complex
political and judicial systems are also dominant components of state formation. During this
process of state formation, the power is being divided over a greater mass of people,
creating an authority with a more humanistic and democratic nature. Like the stricter
control on human habits and emotions, this process of state formation was not intended,
nor orchestrated from a predesigned vision of some sort. `The civilizing process, seen from
the aspects of standards of conduct and drive control, is the same trend which, when seen
from the point of view of human relationships, appears as the process of advancing
integration, increased differentiation of social functions and interdependence, and
the formation of ever-larger units of integration on whose fortunes and movements the
individual depends, whether he knows it or not’. 16
Is this theory able to incorporate the abolition of slavery in the Netherlands as a
supporting phenomenon to its thesis?
Chapter II
Slavery and empathy
The origin of the abolition, sentiments and human reason
14
Norbert, The civilizing process, 346.
Ibidem, 353.
16
Ibidem, 332.
15
9
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
With the end of the eighteenth century in sight, an increased resistance against slavery was
noticeable in Europe. In Holland this resistance was less noticeable. The Dutch slave trade
was dwindling and slave-related commerce was in decline. Around 1800, Holland did not
have the most enlightened elite.17 The enlightenment was a dominant political discourse in
Europe during this time. The new ideas which were related to this discourse, freedom,
equality and brotherhood, did not penetrate the society in Holland. The Dutch were aware
of the atrocities slavery encapsulated, but they also saw the profits which were made on the
slave plantations in Suriname.
The discussion surrounding the abolition of slavery in Holland originated in The
Hague. The French had supported the national assembly which took place in The Hague, and
it is not pure speculation to say that they had put some pressure on the Dutch, concerning
this abolition.18 This conclusion is derived from the minutes of the meetings of 27th and the
28th of April 1797, when the first articles of the first Dutch constitution were discussed.19 In
this assembly, the relationship of the Netherlands with her colonies got the necessary
attention. It more or less was an academic discussion because almost all Dutch foreign
possessions were in the hands of the British and the trading routes linking Holland with the
Dutch East Indies were cut off.20 It is very likely that most members of this national assembly
did not want to include or even talk about the abolition of slavery in the context of the new
constitution. This discussion would scare the Dutch plantation owners, who were dependent
on slavery as their form of income and commerce. Did the sudden French abolition of
slavery in 1794 not unleash the biggest and fiercest slave rebellion in history, which took
place on the island Saint-Domingue? Supporters of the slave trade would state that they
were not the creators of slavery but they merely bought them from African slaver traders,
and that the fate of the slave would be better off when they lived under the ‘caring’ wing of
westerners. Although the assembly put this abolition issue on the national agenda, most
attending members of the national assembly were convinced that Holland should not take
up a radical position in this, and that they had to follow the international tendency, which
was rather conservative. Only Denmark had abolished slavery by that time.
17
D. Outram, The enlightenment (Cambridge 2005) 117.
P. Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850 (Amsterdam 2007) 172.
19
Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, 178.
20
Ibidem, 186.
18
10
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
When in 1814 King Willem I returned to Holland, the slave trade got abolished. It is
quite a paradox that slavery did not get abolished during the most revolutionary period in
Holland, but during the conservative restoration. It is also ironic that that abolition did not
take place because of the pressure revolutionary France exercised upon Holland but that it
took place because of the doings of England, the country which had the most interest in the
slave trade.
As soon as England made slavery an illegal practice, the empire realized that in order to
conserve its position as the dominant world power, they would have to impose the abolition
of slavery on other nations. And that is the reason why on the 13th of August 1814 a royal
decree concerning the forbidding of slave-related practices in the Netherlands and its
subordinates was declared by Willem I. This royal decree was obtained in Holland because of
the enormous pressure England exercised upon the Dutch royal family.21 Willem I was told
that the confiscated colonies would not return to his hands, unless he made slavery illegal.
This led to the fact that between 1814 and 1818 not one single Dutch slave ship was noticed
by the British Empire. Without any commotion, three centuries of slave trade came to an
end. The Dutch already had very little interest in the slave trade since the end of the
eighteenth century, and they also did not want to ruin the good diplomatic and economic
relations they had with the empire. To conclude that the abolition of slave trade was not
related to humanitarian beliefs or feelings of shame towards this form of commerce is quite
remarkable. To examine if the hypothesis of this paper is correct, the next question has to
be answered: Was the slave trade a crucial share of the whole Dutch economy or was it a
mere small fragment of its trade-based economy?
The economic importance of the Dutch slave trade
What would the Netherlands have been without this slave trade and would its economy
have flourished if they had not conducted this trade? The Dutch parliament thought that the
slave trade was rather crucial for the Dutch economy. The parliament was aware of the low
profits which were made in the Dutch slave trade, but nevertheless they were convinced of
the economic importance of the spin-off linked to this commerce.22
21
Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, 230-244.
Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, 172.
22
11
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Is it fair to state that the Dutch parliament was wrong? When the western slave trade
reached its peak, the Dutch had only 30 slave ships which were in use annually. This is less
than one percent of the total Dutch commerce fleet, which consisted out of an estimated
four thousand ships.23 The entire body of deckhands which were stationed on these slave
ships in their heydays consisted out of eleven hundred men, while the total number of Dutch
sailors reached forty-five thousand men. This is a mere two and a half percent of the total
employees in this form of foreign trade. These numbers however, are not conclusive
considering the fact that around 1770 the Netherlands imported goods with a total value of
170 million guilders, from which 80 million guilders were imported from European countries
and 60 million guilders from non-European areas.24 Not a country in the world had so much
interest in intercontinental trade as Holland. 40 million guilders were related to the African
trade and the commerce conducted in the Dutch East Indies.25 The Dutch slave trade had
generated almost fifteen percent of all import indirectly. The Dutch export also included
products which were derived from slave plantations, these products contributed to the
flourishing Dutch export. The Dutch export consisted out of products produced by slaves,
these products covered around ten percent of the total Dutch export. So it is plausible to say
that the Dutch slave trade had certain importance concerning the Dutch economy, if only as
a small (but crucial) gear in a big engine. Because the Dutch export generated big
employment, could abolition damage the economic stability in the Netherlands? Ironically,
this is not true, had the Netherlands not participated in the slave trade, nor the usage of
slavery, the Dutch employment would not have suffered because of the fact that the jobs in
the Atlantic commerce were mostly filled by foreign workers.26
The reason why the slave trade was not abolished at an earlier date is related to the
influence of the trade houses in Amsterdam. These houses depended on the commerce
which was related to the slave plantations and the products these plantations produced,
because the Netherlands was losing more and more influence at sea, and fell victim to heavy
competition, coming from the British and Americans. Amsterdam was by far the most
influential en richest city of the Netherlands and these warehouses had strong connections
23
Ibidem, 172.
Ibidem, 175.
25
Ibidem, 176.
26
Ibidem, 174.
24
12
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
with the municipal authorities. The Dutch were simply clinging to what they still had left,
namely commerce related to the slave plantations.
The slave trade undoubtedly belongs to the darker side of the rising capitalism,
although, as discussed above, it contributed very little to the flourishing capitalism in the
Netherlands. The masses got some advantages with the slave trade, although indirectly and
on a very small scale. The biggest impact the abolition of the slave trade would have had in
earlier times, was a rise in coffee and sugar prices.
So it is clear that the reasons for abolishing slave trade were complex. Economic
reasons predominated the debate surrounding the abolition and the financial consequences
of abolition were being analysed by the Dutch. This happened on such a large scale that it is
hard to applaud or address the emphatic nature of the Dutch as a core feature which led to
the abolition of the slave trade.
Long after the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, the industrial revolution
occurred in the Netherlands. This led to the accumulation of wealth which we are so used to
nowadays. So can it be said that the late arrival of the industrial revolution made it
necessary for the Dutch to continue with their slave related commerce? Or were there other
reasons why it took so long before slavery got abolished in the Netherlands? Holland was
one of the last western countries that abolished this institution and practise, the next
chapter will analyse this abolition and why the Dutch abolished it on such a late date.
Chapter III
13
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
The Dutch abolition
Late abolition
The abolition of the slave trade, and slavery in the Netherlands share similarities. The
humanitarian aspirations which the French had brought to Holland had little impact on the
conservative mind of the Dutch parliament. Freeing slaves and providing the compensation
for the plantation owners was an expensive undertaking for a country in economic
recession.27 Only countries with an expansive economy could afford such measures. As
argued, the plantation production in Surinam had little influence on the Dutch economy, but
if this production would seize to stop unemployment could have risen. It is logical, in an
economic sense, that the Dutch would not take that risk. When the exploitation of the Dutch
East Indies became highly profitable and large sums of money poured in to the Dutch
economy, the Dutch parliament became more open to the discussion of the value and
morality of its slave related commerce in Suriname. The economic importance of Suriname
was dwindling in contrast to the growing importance of the Dutch East Indies, with the
economic importance being very small, the Dutch people became wary of the importance
the slavery in Suriname in contrast to the atrocities it encapsulated. The Dutch asked
themselves if it was still liable to conduct this cruel form of human exploitation if the
exploitation itself was not profitable anymore? Consequently, on the 2nd of July 1862 the
Dutch parliament was convinced that the value of this colony was virtually zero.28
A puzzling notion concerning the backward attitude against slavery is the fact that
Holland did not have an established central church.29 Neither The Roman Catholic Church,
nor the Anglican Church had a firm ground in the Netherlands during this time, which left
more space for the new humanitarian beliefs and principles to be imprinted on to its
citizens. Most of these church leaders also supported the highly influential entrepreneurs
and investors who were connected to the slave industry. So it would be rational to state that
a lack of these religious leaders would create a more abolition-friendly atmosphere, in which
the abolition movement would roam freely. Still this was not the case in Holland. Rather
uniquely, a religious movement erected which did campaign against slavery and slave trade.
27
Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, 231.
76STE ZITTING. — 2 JU LIJ. XXXV. Ophefjing der slavernij in de Nederlandsche West-Indische koloniën.
(Algemeene beraadslaging)
29
D. Outram, The enlightenment (Cambridge 2005) 117.
28
14
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
One which was only seen in Scotland as well.30 This religious movement used basic Christian
beliefs to depict slavery as a non-Christian practice.
From a social point of view too, the anti-slave movement should have had more
support. Around the turn of the eighteenth century, during the French occupation of
Holland, a new middle class had risen. These so-called patriots were the precursors of the
liberals in ‘modern’ Holland. This group wanted to break with the established elite, so why
did they not use the abolition of slavery as a means to separate themselves from the ruling
elite? Their English counterpart was far more supportive, since they were supporting the
abolition of slavery and its movement.31
If all these notions stated above should have encouraged Holland to abolish slavery in
an earlier time, why did it occur so late? Compared to all the other countries involved in
slave trade or slavery, Holland had barely anything to lose if it got abolished. At the end of
the eighteenth century very few slave ships left the Dutch ports, the slave trade linked with
the Dutch Antilles had come to an end, and the slave import in Surinam had gone down
dramatically and had been taken over by British and American entrepreneurs. Although the
British had the most to lose with an abolition of slavery, paradoxically, they were the first.
Since the middle of the seventeenth century, Britain had exploited more and more markets,
in sharp contrast with Holland, which endured more and more pressure on their markets by
the hands of other colonial powers. The Dutch share in foreign products decreased, while
their competitors, namely the Americans and British were winning more terrain, at the cost
of the Netherlands. This development which led to an economic recession, created a
conservative ambiance which dominated most of the merchants’ doings.32 The abolition of
slavery and slave trade would only worsen the Dutch commerce which was already in a bad
shape, no matter how unimportant this trade had become. The ban would not be worth the
humanitarian gains, in the eyes of the Dutch merchants and elite.33 It is therefore plausible
to state that, it took so long for the abolition to become reality because of political and
economic interests, not so much because of feelings of shame or humanitarian ideals.
In the heydays of the anti-slavery sentiments and the Dutch abolition movements,
namely from 1853 until 1856, people did not know what to do exactly with their
30
K. Bradley, The Cambridge world history of slavery (Cambridge 2010) 409.
M. Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland (Groningen 2007) 50.
32
Emmer, De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850, 190.
33
Ibidem, 191.
31
15
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
humanitarian beliefs. In December of 1853, the Dutch government had announced the
abolition of slavery, so it became a matter of time, and a form of consensus had materialised
between the anti-slavery movements and the government. When in 1856 the laws
concerning the slave trade got made much stricter, and were maintained very firmly, the
belief in a gradual abolition peaked. Consequently, after the optimism and the victorious
feelings the Dutch public experienced in 1856, the debate surrounding this topic returned to
a dull state. As did the abolition movement. But how did this movement develop, and how
was it able to influence the Dutch parliament? In the next paragraph, this abolition
movement will be analysed further.
The Dutch abolition movement
The Dutch abolition movement is a relatively controversial historical theme in Dutch history,
because of the late date on which the abolition of slavery became reality. The rising of this
movement was somehow connected to sympathy for one another combined with the
growing awareness of the wrongs in society and feelings of national shame.34 The reason
why the antislavery sentiments did not get elevated into a nation-wide loathing of slavery, is
because slavery did not get condemned by the state until the mid-nineteenth century.
Slavery became a public theme of discussion after a novel was published in 1852, which had
a huge impact and created strong anti-slavery sentiments among the Dutch public. This
novel, called Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. It was a big catalyst
in the sudden rise of the public anti-slavery sentiments. Another large motor in the creation
of this movement was Britain. The empire actively mediated in the creation of the Dutch
antislavery movement.35 As discussed in previous the chapters, the British exercised
pressure on countries that still conducted the slave trade or commerce related to slavery.
The same pressure was exercised upon neighbouring countries by the British abolition
movement. By the spreading of anti-slavery newspapers in Holland and by extensive
lobbying in the wealthy and influential spheres of Holland, they hoped to see some progress
concerning the abolition of slavery. Aware of the Dutch interest in financial benefits, the
British abolition movement tried to make clear that an end to slavery would also be a
financial stimulus. Because of the established British community in Rotterdam, this city
34
35
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 53.
Ibidem, 54.
16
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
became the stage on which the British anti-slavery movement acted.36 Women also brought
to life anti-slavery committees and these ladies were more seen protesting in public than
their male counterparts.37
After the British had put the anti-slavery movement on the public agenda in Holland,
the main committee in Rotterdam took the initiative to combine them all together. And so
the first national antislavery meeting took place on the 29th of October in 1841.38 The
liberals, or former patriots, handed in a proposal for the creation of a society in which
slavery was made illegal by law. Their goal was to get wide support for the abolition of
slavery in Holland. Around this time it had to be impossible for any male Dutch citizen to
have a passive stance in this matter. Although there were some competitive abolition
movements which had different beliefs and interests, the idea of abolition got imbedded in
the Dutch society.
The king of the Netherlands, Willem II, was startled by this initiative of his subjects.
Not only were the colonies and any matters concerning them his business, they fell under his
authority. His colonial policy could not be challenged by anyone; he did not even have to
answer to the parliament. He was furious about the fact that the masses were intervening in
his ‘divine’ territory.39 First of all he was afraid that, if he did not end this debate on the
abolition in time, it would lead to slave revolts in the Dutch colonies. Besides that, he had to
be very angry, and a bit startled because of this up rise of the Dutch people. Although the
king opposed the reforms concerning his colonial and political domain, concessions were
promised by the government in the long term.
In Utrecht, the abolition movement created a unique publishing association. Through
this channel, the people from Utrecht could avoid direct confrontations with the
government but at the same time publish an influential magazine. This magazine was called:
Bijdragen tot de kennis der Nederlandsche en vreemde koloniën, bijzonder betrekkelijk de
vrijlating der slaven.40 The Bijdragen was first published in 1843.41 It was a closed group of
publishers, so it did not have many subscribers, but it nevertheless had acquired a popular
reputation in Holland. If one defended the interests of slaves in this period, people could
36
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 56.
Ibidem, 57.
38
Ibidem, 58.
39
Ibidem, 67.
40
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 75.
41
Ibidem, 75.
37
17
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
make a mockery out of him. Still, this did not prevent the Bijdragen from having a positive
influence on the public opinion in favour of the antislavery movement.42 Even the Dutch
scientific journal De Referent reviewed the first edition of the Bijdrage as followed; “De
gematigden toon, waarom dit Tijdschrift geschreven wordt, het onpartijdig onderzoek,
waarmede zulke hooge belangen hier behandeld worden, zullen het zekerlijk bij de Natie
ingang doen vinden en haar edele poging dezer echt Vaderlandsche mannen op prijs doen
stellen, welke, geheel belangeloos voor zich zelven, de moeijelijke taak der redactie op zich
genomen hebben. De regering wachte zich dit Tijdschrift met de oppositie-blaadjes van den
dag te verwarren.” 43This passage does not only shed some light on the position of the
scientific world in this debate, they mainly defended the humanitarian beliefs, but it also
expresses respect towards the editors of this anti-slavery magazine. It is clear that this
magazine was a professional one, with good arguments and research, which defended its
abolition beliefs in an academic way.
The British and other foreign anti-slavery societies, tried to convince the Dutch
citizens to hand in a proposal for a discussion in parliament about abolition legislation. The
Bijdragen, however, reacted with little enthusiasm. They were wary of such political actions.
Their prudential approach can be seen as a political strategy. The magazine shifted from its
radical state of mind with which it was established, into a more scientific magazine in which
critical thinking was becoming more dominant.44 The editors wanted to create a powerful
core of Dutch abolitionist instead of a chaotic movement of radicals. In 1848 the liberal
abolitionists petitioned the government, by putting the emphasis on economic profit which
abolition would bring. It is not a coincidence that this petition was handed in the same year
as the introduction of the new constitution, which gave the masses more political freedom
and with that an advanced sense of political awareness and political engagement.45
The Bijdragen, which started enthusiastically, became less radical and was even
turning in to a scientific magazine. By investigating the financial profit which could be
obtained if Holland maintained the colony called Surinam, the magazine lost many followers.
The Bijdragen was now seen as an opportunistic magazine. Editors started to lose their faith
42
Ibidem, 79.
Ackersdijck, Jan , Adres aan de edelm. H. H. president en leden van de Tweede Kamer der St. Gen. over de
afschaffing
44
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 87.
45
R. Aerst, Het land van kleine gebaren, een politieke geschiedenis van Nederland 1780-1990 (Nijmegen 2010)
127.
43
18
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
in abolition, because of the everlasting conflict between principles and profits. Freedom and
property as analysed by the conservative Edmund Burke, were opposing actors. This notion
of Edmund Burke; that freedom and property are opposing actors, is based on the idea that
property was a natural right and a fundamental aspect of civilisation and order.46
Although the abolition was close to becoming a reality in 1848, it did not materialise
until 1863, some fifteen years later. Reasons for this are many and some have already been
discussed in previous chapters. It is however important to analyse the stagnation of the
abolition movements and their sentiments. After 1848 the liberals had little attention for the
cause.47 They had attained the executive power by means of democratic voting in 1849, and
were facing enormous debts and an empty treasury.48 To put it simply, they had more
important things to do concerning the revitalisation of their economy. The lack of money
made it impossible for the government to compensate for the decline in labourers for the
plantation owners. So abolition would surely cause chaotic events in the colonies, and in the
domestic environment. Not only did Dutch politics become less interested in abolition,
historians have argued that during the years 1848 until 1853 there was a period of public
dullness concerning this topic.49 This topic got woken up out of its dormant state, because of
the earlier discussed book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The people who read it were deeply
moved by the atrocities committed against the enslaved in the work camps. Dutch
abolitionists like Marten Douwes Teenstra and Julien Wolbers wrote pamflets with moving
titels, such as; De slavernij in Suriname, of dezelfde gruwelen der slavernij, die in de
’Negerhut ’geschetst zijn, bestaan ook in onze West-Indische Koloniën! (1853).50
It looks like the awareness of these atrocities and the ability to relate or identify oneself with
the inhumane conditions in which the slaves lived, contributed to a renewed explosion of
anti-slavery sentiment in Holland. So it is correct to say that empathy was also an important
factor for people to want to abolish slavery. And it turned out that the Dutch government
was susceptible to public opinion.51 This supports Elias’s theory, the empathic feelings of the
people, influenced parliament to abolish slavery. On 9 July 1862, the Dutch parliament finally
F. De Bruyn, ‘Edmund Burke the Political Quixote. Romance, Chivalry, and the Political Imagination’, in:
Eighteenth Century Fiction 16 (2004), 695-733.
47
Janse, de afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 89.
48
Ibidem, 124.
49
J,P. Siwpersad, De Nederlandse regering en de afschaffing van de Surinaamse slavernij 1833-1863
(Groningen 1979) 191.
50
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 101.
51
Janse, De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland, 129.
46
19
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
accepted a bill which would lead to the abolition of slavery. Two months later most abolition
movements dissolved themselves. On the 1st of July 1863 slavery was abolished by law in
the Netherlands.
However, was this the end of slavery and the enslaving of human beings? What
became of the freed Africans? Did they promptly assimilate in western cultures? Did their
standard of living improve? Were they actually free men, equal to Europeans? The next
chapter will go further into these elaborate questions.
Chapter IV
Freedom and servitude
The emancipation of freed slaves
20
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
For historical, cultural and emotional reasons, the term ‘emancipation’ has different
connotations for different groups. However, it is assumed that emancipation has to include a
process whereby a social group who finds itself in a dominated position in society, or is
considered second rate by a dominant group, struggles to improve its conditions and to
attain a fully fledged place in society.52
The dominant notion on the enslaved Africans in 19th century Holland was that they,
once they were free, would behave in a non-civilised way.53 They would just live in small
huts, with some cattle, and enjoy their lives without participating in society. This notion,
although dominant, harboured elements of racism. The African slaves had to be taught and
nurtured in order to understand western society and the concept of freedom. However
backward these notions may seem, they were the reality in those days. The Dutch
parliament was divided into two fractions; one group was pro-abolition but wanted to
include many restrictions on the concept of freedom, while the other group was also proabolition but wanted an extensive concept of freedom. 54 The latter group wanted a form of
freedom where the freed Africans would be free to do whatever they want, even if it meant
that they would not participate in society. The first group had the most members and
therefore enjoyed abounding executive power. They believed that the Africans who were
freed had to be made fit for freedom in a society. They had to be turned into god fearing
laborious citizens in order to be stately citizens.55 The reasons why the Europeans feared the
unemployed Negro, do not come solely from these western thoughts, but has something to
do with the way African slaves were thought to view the free white men. This view of the
African slaves is analysed by a member of the Dutch parliament: ’Een neger blijft een neger,
en het is te vergeefs den Moriaan te wasschen. Vooral de arbeid op het veld geeft groote
moeijelijkheden. De blanke, zegt men in Suriname, arbeidt niet op het veld, adqui ergo is
zulks eene schande. Een vrij man, zegt de slaaf, draagt schoenen en een blaauwen of gelen
hoed, maar een vrij man werkt niet; vrij is gelijk: ik mag alles doen en behoef niet te
arbeiden.’56
52
K. Nimako and G. Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation (Londen 2011) 123.
Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation, 116.
54
G. Willemsen, Dagen van gejuich en gejubel : 1 juli 1863: afschaffing van de slavernij in Nederland, Suriname
en de Nederlandse Antillen (Denhaag 2006) 90.
55
Willemsen, Dagen van gejuich en gejubel, 91.
56
76ste zitting Ophefjing der slavernij in de Nederlandsche West-Indische koloniën. (Algemeene beraadslaging)
53
21
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
This passage from a meeting of the Dutch parliament, gives a very clear image of how the
magistrates thought about the freeing of slaves. It depicts the notion of African slaves that
free European men do not work on the field, so when they will be free as well, they are
equal to the European men and therefore do not have to work. The followers of this view
were supporters of a state-controlled period of transition where in the slaves could adjust
properly to the Dutch society. They preferred the British notion of apprenticeship.57 This socalled apprenticeship was a form of augmented humanitarian belief. Slaves could not be left
on their own, for their own sake, and had to be taken care of by their European masters and
fathers. It was a combination of a paternalistic relation as well as a master-apprentice
relation. In both cases the Europeans have the superior and dominant position. Also when
they would be freed, they were not allowed to leave Suriname, in case the opportunity to
enjoy more freedom elsewhere presented itself. These restrictions of civil liberties were
deemed necessary to get the freed Africans accustomed to a form of family life.58 Ironically,
this is said by a nation which had this “incapable” people abducted from their homeland,
and had prevented them from forming families under slavery. The semi-freed Africans got
the same rights as Europeans after the period of Dutch state policing.
Parliament was also concerned with the costs of this mass-scale emancipation as is
seen by this quote which was given by a member of parliament.
“Imputeer ik nu al de kosten der emancipatie (15 millioen) op 1863 (ofschoon de Minister van
Finantien voor het volgend jaar slechts rekent op 13 400 000 gulden)”.59 Here again the
Dutch seem very attached to their financial interests instead of being concerned about
humanitarian beliefs. The apprenticeship was a form of state supervision over all freed
slaves, which lasted for over a decade.60 In this time span, the Dutch government would
shape these Africans into ‘proper’ citizens by teaching them the workings of western society.
Some groups who advocated direct freedom, without this form of subordination, saw this
apprenticeship as a conditioned state of freedom. In other words, this group who were
against the application of the apprenticeship saw it as a continuation of slavery. This group
of people made a plea for direct emancipation, without this so-called period of transition
wherein the apprenticeship would be incorporated. Soon after people experienced the flaw
57
Ibidem.
Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation, 116.
59
76ste zitting Ophefjing der slavernij in de Nederlandsche West-Indische koloniën. (Algemeene beraadslaging)
60
Willemsen, Dagen van gejuich en gejubel, 100.
58
22
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
in this system of apprenticeship, namely the uselessness of this system, the years in which a
slave would be under supervision was reduced to four years.61 During a debate between
supporters and protesters of this proposal which included apprenticeship, both parties
attacked one another with accusations. Some of these accusations were not based on
reality, and therefore help to illustrate the hotness of this debate. An example of one nonrealistic accusation is demonstrated by a supporter of the apprenticeship, he accused his
critic for having had an imaginary conversation with an imaginary African.62 The anti-slavery
parliamentarians wanted that the freed Africans should be able to choose their own
profession, without the compulsory labour as advocated by the law which included the
apprenticeship. A freed African should have the freedom to choose his own profession and
this anti-slavery movement, which included Dutch parliamentarians thought that it was best
if they worked for themselves.63 To put it in other words, they wanted a direct transfer from
slavery to free wage labour without this period of transition in which the freed ones had to
work compulsory. It is arguable if this form of compulsorily labour is not just a form of
slavery in disguise.64
Both the supporters and the protesters of the bill tried to enhance their plea by
including the approach of their neighbouring countries concerning the colonies and the
abolition. The abolitionist wanted to draw lessons out of the negative experiences the British
had endured concerning the apprenticeship, and wondered why the Dutch state would want
to put freed slaves under the same sort of supervision. The supporters of the bill argued that
in some British and French colonies, where the apprenticeship was absent, complete chaos
originated because the plantation owners permanently lost their ‘employees’ and became
financially ruined. The truth was, as usual, present in both scenarios. The two-sided coin
could not be tossed without one party being aggrieved.
In the end, can it be said that the abolitionists in parliament influenced the proposal,
in favour of the freed Africans? If we consider the time span of the supervision of the state,
yes. It was reduced to an average of four years to a maximum of ten years. This supervision
was intended to last 12 years.65 Concerning the compulsory labour, the abolitionists did not
61
Willemsen, Dagen van gejuich en gejubel, 101.
Ibidem, 104.
63
Ibidem, 106.
64
L.R., Ransom, One kind of Freedom, the economic consequences of emancipation (Camebridge 2001) 81.
62
65
Willemsen, Dagen van gejuich en gejubel, 120.
23
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
have much influence. Slaves could choose the labour they wanted, if they had acquired their
own piece of land. The acquisition of land was made difficult by this law, in which the
enslaved did not receive any land, although there was enough. The Dutch government
created a property-less ex-slave class on purpose with this bill, and so the slaves were forced
to conduct labour.66 Full emancipation was never achieved.67 It is an ongoing process which
some authors claim has not ended yet.68
The aftermath of the abolition
The imperialist momentum imposed a new social and political system on Africa, where there
was no room for slavery. The African social order was firmly rooted in slavery in the
nineteenth century. Europe did its best to avoid its commitment to abolition, reluctantly
pursuing the fight whenever compromise proved impossible.69 Abolition was eventually
achieved not so much because of the desire of one party to end slavery, but because the
modern industrial system and a slave-based social formation were incompatible. To put it in
Marxist terms, the clash was based on the contradictions between different modes of
production. The demise of slavery was inevitable in the context of absorption into a
capitalist world-economy.70 Europeans instituted conflicting policies that at best can be said
to be confusing. European territory was free so that fugitives should have been freed once
they entered a colony but European administrations often returned fugitives to their
masters. Furthermore, the British distinguished protectorates from colonies in terms of legal
status. In British colonies, slaves were technically free. In protectorates, British law did not
apply and slaves were not free, even though the slave trade was outlawed.71 While massive
flights from slavery were clearly discouraged by the oscillation in European actions and
policies, slaves still saw European outposts as possible safe havens, where they could live a
free life.
European laws and actions, often contradictory but none the less very encouraging,
provided the chance. Slaves ran away; they opened new lands for farms; they provided
migrant labour for agriculture and mining; they served as hired porters before railways and
66
Ransom, One kind of Freedom, the economic consequences of emancipation (Camebridge 2001) 198.
Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation, 122.
68
Ibidem, 190.
69
D. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (Oxford 1988) 246.
70
Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 247.
71
Ibidem, 249.
67
24
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
roads could break the transportation bottleneck. The aim of the slaves was freedom, not the
modification of the conditions of slavery, and this often placed Europeans in the position of
reforming the institution so that its demise would occur gradually and not in one, single
revolutionary action.72 The colonial regimes became defenders of slavery and the greatest
single impediment to full emancipation.73 Missionaries, reformers and some business circles
prompted the mystique that Africa would be uplifted by civilization, Christianity and
commerce, the so-called three “C’s”. Commerce had the opposite effect; it increased the
number of enslaved within Africa. The remaining ‘C’s”, civilization in the form of the
European colonial conquest and Christianity through the actions of missionaries- had a more
profound impact in ‘civilising’ the continent, although not always intended.74 Africans
became Christian and adapted to the Christian beliefs, notions and therefore adopted a
more European form of domestic life. European rhetoric pushed in the direction of abolition
and emancipation; European experience encouraged complicity and often openly supported
slavery under the guise of domestic slavery was different from slavery elsewhere. 75
This is what happened after slavery got abolished and the amount of impact it had
on Africa, Europe and the enslaved. The freed Africans did not enjoy the same freedom as
Europeans did and the freed Africans continued to live in harsh conditions. Full assimilation
in the western culture did not happen promptly but was a long process which ended far
beyond my timeframe. Emancipation was only legally obtained, in most western countries
forms of racial segregation continued to exist. The abolition however, did give the state a
bigger monopoly on the exercise of physical force. This abolition made it illegal for the public
to exercise physical force on its enslaved subordinates. An enslaver cannot physically punish
his slaves any longer and therefore abolition led to an increased number of people who lost
access to the means of force. This became a matter of the state, now the freed Africans
steadily acquired the same legal rights as the Europeans. It is plausible to say, however, that
the abolition of slavery in the Netherlands conceptualises the first phase which led to the
acquiring of the monopoly of physical force by the state, and therefore the abolition could
still support Elias’s theory of state formation.
72
Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation, 186.
Ibidem, 186.
74
Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 250
75
Nimako, Willemsen, The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation, 123.
73
25
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Conclusion
It is difficult to draw a hard conclusion from this research. Norbert Elias’s civilization theory
was based on human sentiments, such as shame, and empathy which were the engine of
26
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
human progress. Civilisation would become more humane over time, and humankind would
become more civilized over time. This process is an ongoing one, in which every society
keeps on developing, in a positive sense.
Although I agree with the term modernisation or modern, which has a positive
connotation, in the sense of technological, political and scientific improvement in regard to
earlier times, I do not find it convincing to state that the world has become a more humane
place to live in. The present-day treatment of animals, the exploitation of nature and its
resources, and for example the rising human poverty in the ‘less’ developed countries are
signs of a degenerating process. From a historian’s point of view, it is very hard to claim that
one era is better than the other. The founder of “modern” historiography, Leopold von
Ranke was very strict in defining the tasks of historians. With his famous principle “wie es
eigentlich gewesen” he advocated for a methodology where historians would just describe
history as is was, without any subjective input. One should view historical periods as a
different country, which is not better or worse but just different.76 Because Norbert Elias
was an early sociologist, it is plausible that he wanted to enhance the view on history by
implementing big theories and elaborate structures in his view. In the structure-agency
debate, Norbert Elias would be a supporter of the notion of structure.
The abolition of slavery was an intricate process with many different agents having
played an important role. The Dutch citizens were not susceptible to the enlightened ideas,
brought to them by France. Holland was one of the last western countries to abolish slavery,
and its abolition movement was being nurtured by English movements. The Dutch
parliament was in an ongoing debate, where humanitarian beliefs were being put aside by
economic interests. The emancipation of freed Africans in Dutch colonies was an agonizing
and slow process. Even after slavery was abolished, western societies kept on exploiting the
freed Africans, and the African continent.77 The Netherlands just wanted to preserve their
power, in an economic sense but also in a political sense, they wanted to consolidate their
diplomatic relations with the British Empire.
All of this is not making Elias’s theory more plausible, which claimed that
humanitarian beliefs and feelings of shame would create a more developed society. Some
Dutch people would have been ashamed of the doings of their government, but the
76
77
L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between (Londen 1953) 1.
Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, 249.
27
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
awareness of the atrocities and slavery as a whole was limited. Therefore it is
understandable that a book like Uncle Tom’s Cabin would create an outburst in antislavery
sentiments in Holland. Now people became aware of slavery and the gruesomeness it
encapsulated. So when people became more aware, they also started to feel more ashamed
and began to support the humanitarian beliefs. In this sense the civilisation theory is given
foundation, however, abolition was being passed, mainly, because of economic and political
interests.78 The abolition did take place, and was influenced by abolition movements and
their humanitarian beliefs, however, they were not the decisive factor in the abolition of
slavery. As a firm believer in the importance of long term processes and big structures,
Elias’s theory cannot be applied on to the abolition of slavery in the Netherlands. The Dutch
abolition materialised in a relatively short period, and was made reality by a rather small
group of people. This makes it hard for the civilisation theory to incorporate the abolition as
a supporting phenomenon.
The abolition of slavery therefore does not support Norbert Elias’s theory, but his
theory is neither denounced by this phenomenon. There are some who would find this
conclusion too inconclusive, but some aspects of abolition could be described as supportive
of his theory while other aspects could be said to condemn his theory. I find his theory a very
interesting one, but as an historian I find it hard to implement his theory on history.
Bibliography:
Primary sources
Koninklijke Bibliotheek, ‘76Ste zitting Ophefjing der slaverij. De Nederlandsche West-Indische
koloniën. (Algemeene beraadslaging 1862)',
http://resourcessgd.kb.nl/SGD/18611862/PDF/SGD_18611862_0000159.pdf
(11 november 2011).
78
Ransom, One kind of Freedom, the economic consequences of emancipation, 198.
28
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Parliamentarian Ackersdijck, Jan , ‘Adres aan de edele H. H. president en leden van de
Tweede Kamer der St. Gen. over de afschaffing 1848’ Bibliotheek universiteit Utrecht,
collectie Ackersdijck [CA] : HS21A2
Secundary sources
Aerts, R. and Te Velde, H., Een land van kleine gebaren, een politieke geschiedenis van
Nederland 1780-1990 (Nijmegen 2010).
Bradley, K e.a,. The Cambridge world history of slavery (Cambridge 2011).
De Bruyn, F., ‘Edmund Burke the political quixote. Romance, chivalry, and the political
magination’, Eighteenth Century Fiction 16 (2004) 695-733.
Emmer, C.P., De Nederlandse slavenhandel 1500-1850 (Amsterdam 2007).
Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish, the birth of a prison (New York 1979).
Gerstle, G., American crucible: Race and nation in the twentieth Century (Princeton 2001).
Goudsblom, J., Het regime van de tijd (Amsterdam 1997).
Hartley, L,P., The go-between (Londen 1953).
Janse, M., De afschaffers, publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland (Groningen
2007).
Nimako, K. and Willemsen, G., The Dutch atlantic, slavery, abolition and emancipation
(Londen 2011).
Norbert, E., The civilizing process, The history of manners (New York 1978).
Norbert, E., The civilizing process, State formation and civilization (Oxford 1982).
29
Fabian Gomes Monteiro
|
3534391
Noble, T and Strauss, S.S., Western civilization, beyond boundaries (Belmont 2010).
Outram, D., The enlightenment (Cambridge 2005).
Ransom, L.R., One kind of Freedom, the economic consequences of emancipation
(Camebridge 2001).
Siwpersad, J.P., De Nederlandse regering en de afschaffing van de Surinaamse slavernij 18331863 (Groningen 1979).
Willemsen, G., Dagen van gejuich en gejubel (Den Haag 2006).
30