First of all, on behalf of the representatives of the National Platform who were present at the meeting on 21 September, I would like to note that the consultation took place in an open atmosphere. We would like to express the hope that this will continue to be the case in the future. On our part, we have found a large degree of agreement with you regarding our intentions.
Nevertheless, you have raised questions about a number of issues, namely:
A. the motivation for the designation 'institute';
B. the level of support for the institute;
C. the motivation for the importance of the institute for the multicultural society.
Below I will elaborate on the points mentioned.
Ad A. Why the designation 'institute'
Although your expressed reservations made us look up with surprise, as you undoubtedly noticed, we have considered a number of things with regard to this concept – again in detail. On the other hand, we greatly appreciated the way in which you presented this in all openness. We fully realise that there is a risk that a semantic discussion will arise around the concepts of institute versus centre, which could push the matter itself into the background and cause unnecessary delays in the preparation of the establishment of the institute. It will be clear to you that we are not in favour of this position. It was precisely at the invitation of the coordinating ministries of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and Education, Culture and Science, on behalf of ministers Van der Ploeg and Van Boxtel, that we very promptly accepted the offer to come up with a version of the project plan and subsidy application for the benefit of the institute to be established as initiators.
However, we will explain in more detail why, even after reconsideration, we still have no reason to abandon the concept of 'institution'.
A first reason lies in the creation. After all, from the very first documents it was about the creation of an institute. The request for quotation from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations to the research agency 'Multiresult' also demonstrates this by instructing 'Multiresult' to choose the report 'From monument to institute, a sketch in broad outline' as a starting point. Also in the subsequent phase with the result of the report of 'Multiresult', partly based on interviews with experts, an expert meeting and a conference and which was endorsed by all parties involved - including the ministries - it is consistently about an institute. In our view, there is absolutely no reason to go back on the broadly supported consensus between all parties involved that an institute should be created.
A second reason lies in the fact that going back on the aforementioned consensus now would not be understood by our supporters and would therefore lead to frustrations, the feeling of not being taken seriously. There is a real chance that people and organizations will drop out, which means that the development of the institute will no longer get off the ground. Both the Dutch government and parliament have now acknowledged the Dutch slavery past and its consequences for the present time. There is a truly historic opportunity for a dignified approach to the Dutch slavery dossier in a way that does justice to all parties in our society and thus makes a significant contribution to strengthening the foundation of our society. Whoever frustrates this opportunity takes on a heavy responsibility. Do not build a bridge to the descendants of the enslaved, but erect a bastion. And in doing so go against the explicit politically expressed wish of the government.
The third reason is an extension of the second. Time and again it has been stated and expressed in the documents that it must concern an institution experienced as 'own' by the descendants of slavery. Until it is experienced as 'own', the characterization of the dynamic dimension of the monument of Dutch slavery past, as an institution, also falls within the perception of the descendants. Withholding the right of such a characterization from the descendants at the very least evokes the appearance of, let me put it this way, a paternalistic attitude, while on this side we are precisely striving for a balanced and equal relationship in accordance with the principles of the Dutch government.
A fourth consideration is more substantive in nature. We believe that an institute is more appropriate because of the need for historical research from a non-Eurocentric perspective. That research does not currently exist, that is sufficiently well known. This does not condemn universities and other institutions. However, it does
meet the justified desire of descendants for a multi-faceted approach. We believe that, partly because of this necessary multi-faceted approach, an institute has a clear added value and relevance compared to a centre, which in our perception mainly implies a relay function.
We would also like to point out that in our view – as we have already explicitly indicated – this institute will not operate in a vacuum, but is fully aware of other actors, including universities, in this area and will seek the necessary cooperation and consultation, including through the establishment of functional advisory councils in which other institutions could also participate.
We realise that the term institute may have undesirable connotations for some: however, we are concerned with a mobile, decisive institute that collaborates and consults with other institutions, while of course retaining the ability to take matters on and drive them forward. We hope that those few are prepared to look ahead with a positive outlook and to be able to radiate confidence.
Finally, we would like to point out that, unlike countries such as England and the United States, which have multiple institutes and a multifaceted research tradition on the theme of slavery, the Netherlands lacks an institute that was set up around the theme of slavery. You will undoubtedly agree with us that the time is ripe to catch up with this deficit abroad.
Ad B. What is the support base?
The institute enjoys an extremely broad support base. First of all, we would like to point out the political support base, government, directly involved ministers and parliament. In addition, we would like to point out the covenant concluded in this regard between the State of the Netherlands and the Municipality of Amsterdam, more specifically article 2 thereof. Furthermore, we would like to point out the support base within the organisations of descendants, bundled in the 'National Platform'. Furthermore, we would like to point out the growing support base as a result of ongoing activities in the areas of education, documentation and the museum function (joint projects with Teleac/NOT, museums, etc.). Furthermore, we would like to mention the existing contacts with prominent figures from the academic world, which will be further expanded and strengthened.
In short: we have broad support and we are convinced of the need to maintain it.
Ad C. What is the importance of the institute for the Dutch multicultural society?
It is known that an 'own' institution can play an important role as a concrete point of identification that is important for the interpretation of the collective identity of groups of people. Given the role of history and culture in this, an own institution can contribute to the processing of the slavery past. In comparable situations - such as the Moluccans - the existence of an independent institution has clearly contributed to the emotionality that goes hand in hand with the feeling of backwardness and deprivation, having ebbed away and been converted into an awareness with which one can confidently approach society. Within this, attention should also be paid to the fact that the descendants of slavery contribute to and are part of Dutch society. Partly because of this, the development of mutual understanding and respect between groups in Dutch society is given an optimal chance. The institute will therefore explicitly focus on various groups - young/old/white/black etc. In doing so, we are investing in the development of Dutch society as a whole. A society in which we, precisely with awareness and knowledge of existing historical backgrounds, opt for living together peacefully. Viewed in this way, the institute is partly the cement for the Dutch multicultural society.
As chairman of the national Platform, I hope to have informed you sufficiently with the above and I have every confidence in a successful continuation of the discussions, the next of which is planned for 13 October. Now that the offer has also been made by the municipality of Amsterdam regarding “housing” for the dynamic monument or an institute to be established, we hope to be able to exchange further ideas with you on 13 October about the content of our proposal and the follow-up procedure with regard to decision-making.
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Chairman of the National Platform
Mrs. Drs. Barryl A. Biekman
