The Dutch Slavery Museum has moved a step closer, as the Arts Council (Amsterdam) and the Council for Culture (Rijk) have issued an opinion on the exploration of a direction group presented earlier this year. Thus, official procedural due diligence has been met, although this way the establishment of the necessary museum does seem to take at least as much time as it took the Netherlands in the 18th and 19th centuries to abolish slavery. For with the advice, the museum is far from there.
That starts with where it should be. It should be a ''big, iconic building' be, preferably with a park around it. The advisory rightly states that it will be difficult to find such a thing in Amsterdam's city centre, and one can imagine a search for a suitable location in 'the Amsterdam metropolitan region'. Everything from Haarlem and Alkmaar to Hilversum and Utrecht would seem to be able to compete in this way.
Pop-up
That search for a place can take quite a while, which is why the advice states: 'The councils agree with a phased build-up, but believe it would be good to establish the research and knowledge centre first, including presentation function. From the start, the museum's signature should also be built. This can be done online and offline, and pop-up presentations can contribute to this.'
Another thorny issue concerns which slavery the museum should be about. The opinion now states: 'In the exploration, transatlantic slavery forms the core of the museum. In time, according to the Direction Group, there is also room for broadening to slavery in the East through a growth model. The councils are of the opinion that this broadening should be part of the concept from the start, not from a different angle, but for the sake of the full story.'
Koest
The regiegroep's explanation of this departure from exploration is interesting, though. In the report, the councils state the following: 'Within this broad approach to Dutch slavery history and its ramifications, transatlantic slavery, because of its scale and the large number of persons in diaspora, also occupies a prominent place as far as the councils are concerned. In the public debate, Afro-Caribbean communities in particular have worked hard to draw attention to the slavery past and its impact on contemporary society.'
So it seems that the descendants of the Dutch slavery in 'The East' have kept quiet almost too long to qualify for an overly prominent place in the museum. That then, if the Indian community had not beaten the drum earlier, there should have been a separate museum for Dutch human trafficking around the Indian Ocean.
In a formulation that tries to stay far from any possible accusation of 'whataboutism' (a jamaarism that relativises the seriousness of a case by bringing in another case) the Council for Culture and the Amsterdam Arts Council now argue: 'Research into slavery in the Indonesian archipelago and the Indian Ocean has received increasing attention in recent years. The councils hope that the museum can make the connection between different aspects of the Dutch colonial slavery past, shining light on the essential differences in the impact of slavery.'
Public
The question remains as to how such a Slavery Museum can become a place that all Dutch people enjoy visiting. Euphemistically, the opinion states: 'An international survey suggests that the Dutch are more proud and less critical of their national past than residents of other European countries. When the Amsterdam Museum announced it would no longer use the term 'Golden Age' as a catch-all term for a period in history, it led to much discussion about the meaning of terms that have their origins in the colonial past.'
Further on, the opinion states: 'The councils can imagine the museum making extra efforts to also appeal to public groups that do not (yet) feel connected to the subject. Especially a national museum that focuses on an emotionally charged period of Dutch history has a great responsibility in this respect. Herein lies a challenge for the museum'.
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
