Introduction

Slavery and slave resistance have been core issues in the post-war historiography of the Caribbean. At the same time, massive migration from the British, Dutch and French Caribbeans to Europe has literally brought the legacies of colonialism and hence slavery home to the former metropolitan countries. Virtually all Caribbean nations, moreover, are thoroughly transnational today. One of the consequences of this post-colonial condition has been the emergence of what is now generally known as ‘the Black Atlantic’, a concept coined by Gilroy (1993). The shared history of enslavement provides a central point of reference within this Black Atlantic. It also provides inspiration for narratives of history that gloss over fundamental differences within the history of Atlantic slavery.

This chapter addresses the recent Dutch rediscovery and, at times, perhaps reinvention of the Netherlands’ long history of slave trade and slavery in relation to the impact of the post-war migration from the Dutch Caribbean. A first issue is the overall impact of post-colonial migration – from Indonesia and the Caribbean – on the way Dutch history is canonised. The next sections provide a succinct analysis of the significance of slave trade and slavery in the various realms of the Dutch colonial empire, followed by an analysis of the recent and relatively successful impact of the Caribbean demand to accept African slavery as an integral part of Dutch national history. The final sections discuss the contested issue of the legacies of slavery and the issue of ‘black’-versus-‘white’ perspectives; question whether Black Atlantic interpretations indeed help us see New World slavery and its legacies with fresh eyes; debate the concept and uses of ‘cultural trauma’; and, finally, offer some reflections on the position of historians.

A word regarding the background to this chapter is appropriate. Three Dutch historians of slavery have been particular vocal on these issues in the Netherlands and have therefore become voluntary or reluctant actors in the field at the same time. Emmer and Van Stipriaan, both highly respected for their scholarly work, have represented some strongly opposing views on these matters. A third historian engaged in these debates is the present author, who should probably be located somewhere between the other two. A good deal of this chapter therefore derives from publications by these three authors as well as from the present author's ongoing engagement with these issues. A good outsider's analysis is provided by Kardux.