Beyond race: constructions of ‘Europeanness’ in late-colonial legal practice in the Dutch East Indies

Abstract

This article proposes to introduce the study of European identity into colonial history and vice versa. It analyses the ways in which the legal classification of the population functioned in late-colonial Indonesia. A close inspection of this case reveals that the oft-cited fundamental colonial difference between ‘ruler’ and ‘ruled’ was in reality not nearly as clear-cut. The concept of ‘Europeanness’ – as opposed to ‘Whiteness’ – is highlighted as the category at the center of colonial hierarchy. This leads to a re-evaluation of the relative significance of various differentiating categories in the colonial context, most importantly race and class. The author concludes that by not taking ‘Europeanness’ seriously as an independent category, scholars of ‘cultural racism’ have tended to overemphasise ‘race’, with the consequence of oversimplifying the complex, multi-layered nature of the colonial social hierarchy.

Keywords:

• Europeanness
• Whiteness
• colonial rule
• cultural racism
• identity
• Dutch East Indies

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dirk Moses, Kiran Klaus Patel, Ilse Raaijmakers, Paul Sager, Fenneke Sysling, and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Funding for the research on which this article is based was provided by the NUFFIC (The Hague) and the European University Institute (Florence).

Notes

 1. Some important recent works: Malmborg and Stråth, The Meaning of Europe; Kaelble, “Europäisches Selbstverständnis”; Bluche, Lipphardt, and Patel, Der Europäer; Schmale, Geschichte Europas.

 2. Kaelble, Europäer über Europa; Wintle, Imagining Europe; Stråth, Europe and the Other; Patel, “Where and When.”

 3. Maß, “Weißer Mann”; Rempe, “Crashkurs”; Lipphardt, “Knowing Europe”; Gerwarth and Malinowski, “Europeanization through Violence?”; Whyte, “Modernism”.

 4. Chatterjee, “The Colonial State.”

 5. Cf. Kolsky, “Codification,” 636–8.

 6. Kolsky, Colonial Justice, 104. Also consider the growing popularity of studying “Whiteness” in empire, whilst the contemporary term of preference was “European”: Ghosh, “Who Counts as ‘Native?’”; Mizutani, “Rethinking Inclusion”; Mizutani, “Historicising Whiteness”; Coté, “Education.” For a more cautious approach: Buettner, “Problematic Spaces.”

 7. Cf. Protschky, “Race, Class, and Gender.”

 8. Stoler, Race; Stoler, Carnal Knowledge; Stoler, Along the Archival Grain; Cooper and Stoler, Tensions of Empire.

 9. Stoler, Race, 101–8; Stoler, “A Colonial Reading,” 140–61; Stoler, “A Sentimental Education,” 112–39.

10. Stoler, “Thinking Through Colonial Ontologies.” Also see: Stoler, Race, 101–8, 177–78, 203–9; Stoler, “Genealogies of the Intimate,” 7–8, 12, 17; Stoler, “Sexual Affronts,” 84. Also cf. Stoler and Cooper, “Between Metropole,” 10–16.

11. Ulbe Bosma sometimes seems to argue in that direction: Bosma, Indiëgangers, 13, 107–9; Bosma, “The Indo,” 69–74.

12. Cf. Raben, “Ambiguities.” Also see: Bosma and Raben, Being “Dutch”, xvi–xx, 17–25; Bosma, Indiëgangers, 11–3, 107–9, 188.

13. With a similar argument: Protschky, “Race,” 549–50.

14. Hooker, Legal Pluralism; Mommsen and De Moor, European Expansion; Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures; Saada, Les enfants.

15. For the legal history of the Dutch East Indies prior to 1854, see: Ball, Indonesian Legal History; Mastenbroek, De historische ontwikkeling, 1–88.

16. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën en Opvolgers: Dossierarchief (henceforth NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief), 2.10.54, 747, Report by J.J. Schrieke, 27 February 1927, 22–63; Verslag commissie Visman , vol. 2: 52–9; NL-HaNA, Nederlandsch-Indische Spoorwegmaatschappij, 2.20.14.01, 93, Dossier 920-I: Regeling der positie van het Inlandsch personeel 1913–1929; Wetboeken, 37–71. Cf. on differentiation in the application of criminal law and the concurrent punishments: Cribb, “Legal Pluralism”.

17. Cf. Lev, “Colonial Law,” 62.

18. For article 109RR in original form, see: Lijnkamp, Japannerwet, 21.

19. Fasseur, “Cornerstone,” 84–91; Van der Wal, “Het rascriterium,” 832–53.

20. Wetboeken, 67–8. All translations in this article are mine. Article 109RR capitalises both “Native” and “Foreign Oriental”, but this usage is not uniform throughout the legal and administrative documentation (whereas for European it is). In this article I have – following a general (though not universal) tendency of the sources – chosen to write “Native” and “Foreign Oriental” where they are used as substantives, and “native” and “(foreign) oriental” as an adjective.

21. For purposes of legibility, I use the male pronoun throughout where the gender of the intended subject is irrelevant or unknown. Legal discussion in the Indies, in fact, mostly focused on male subjects as the presumed dominant sex; see below.

22. Henceforth I focus on differences between “Europeans” and “Natives”, without extended discussion of the specific legal position of “Foreign Orientals”. On the latter, see: Claver, “Struggling for Justice”; Tjiook-Liem, De rechtspositie.

23. Prins, “De bevolkingsgroepen,” 652–3.

24. Faber, “De wet op het Nederlanderschap,” 7.

25. Cf. Hooker, Legal Pluralism, 257–65.

26. For some different contexts in which these possible translations are relevant, see: Faber, “De wet op het Nederlanderschap,” 7–8; Prins, “De bevolkingsgroepen,” 652–4; Verslag herzieningscommissie , passim; Encyclopaedie , vol. 2: 338–9.

27. Collections KITLV, Leiden, Cornelis van Vollenhoven, 5, I.A. Nederburgh, “Inlander en toch Nederlander,” c.1910–15.

28. Wetboeken, 62–3; Verslag herzieningscommissie, 50–1.

29. Carpentier Alting, “Het rassencriterium,” 183.

30. The phrase “two worlds” was coined by Cornelis van Vollenhoven, cited in: NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 758, Memorandum Prof. B. ter Haar, 24 May 1937. Cf. Fasseur, “Colonial Dilemma,” 237–56.

31. Verslag herzieningscommissie, xviii, 48–55, 185, 291–304, 480–2; Verslag commissie Visman, vol. 2: 45, 59–69; NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 745, Report Sonneveld commission, 11 June 1919, pp. 10–12, 20–5.

32. Verslag herzieningscommissie, 293, 400–6.

33. NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 929, Letter from the State Commission to the Minister for Colonial Affairs (MinKol), 21 December 1908; NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 746, mailrapport 165x/22, Letter by the Director for Legal Affairs (DirJus) to the GG, 1 February 1922; Verslag commissie Visman, vol. 2: 23.

34. Prins, “De bevolkingsgroepen,” 685; Neijtzell de Wilde, “De rechtsbedeeling,” 91–9. Cf. Lev, “Colonial Law,” 62.

35. Wetboeken, 62–3. Cf. Houben, “Boundaries of Race,” 69–71.

36. Van Marle, “De groep,” 104–5.

37. Verslag commissie Visman, vol. 2: 45.

38. “Vonnis van den landraad”; cf. Bertling, “Onopgeloste oplossing,” 22–4; Carpentier Alting, Grondslagen; Van Marle, “De groep,” 111–2.

39. “Hooggerechtshof.” Cf. Bertling, “Onopgeloste oplossing,” 23–4.

40. An example: “Residentiegerecht te Bandoeng.”

41. Van Marle, “De groep,” 111–12. The term “racial dividend” I have borrowed from Fischer-Tiné, Low and Licentious Europeans, 233–323.

42. Stoler, “Sexual Affronts,” 101–6; Locher-Scholten, “Marriage.”

43. There were important ways in which female cultural expressions defined “Europeanness”, but these are, interestingly, not relevant in the legal regulations. Cf. Stoler, Carnal Knowledge; Locher-Scholten, Women; Clancy-Smith and Gouda, Domesticating the Empire.

44. Immigrants from Turkey and Russia created particular brain racking: NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 747, Secretary of the Colonial Government to the Government Representative at the People's Council, 18 April 1924; NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 748, Advice by the Council of the Netherlands Indies, 18 March 1932, §34.

45. Wetboeken, 62. The Dutch original reads: “alle van elders afkomstige personen […], die in hun land onderworpen zouden zijn aan een familierecht, in hoofdzaak berustende op dezelfde beginselen als de Nederlandsche”.

46. NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 748, Letter No. 1195/28 from the Advisor for Chinese Affairs, 21 December 1928. For the nineteenth-century version of the clause: Lijnkamp, Japannerwet, 21.

47. NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 748, Telegram from the GG to MinKol, 20 February 1929; NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 752, Advice by DirJus, 22 October 1931.

48. Prins, “De bevolkingsgroepen,” 667–8; Carpentier Alting et al., Vierentwintig ontwerpen, 14. Cf. Van Marle, “De groep,” 99.

49. Cited in: Lijnkamp, Japannerwet, 26–7.

50. Bootsma, “Herstel,” 34–41; NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 747, Report by the Logemann Commission, §121.

51. Kessel, Zwarte Hollanders; Kessel, “The Black Dutchmen.” The exact number of these African descendants is unknown, as they were not registered separately.

52. Kessel, “Belanda hitam,” 244.

53. Kessel, “Belanda hitam,” 247–50; Kusruri, “Reminiscences.”

54. The primary translation of the term “belanda” (or “blanda”) in colonial-era Malay is “Dutch” or “Dutchman”, but it was also generally used for “European” or “White person”. The notion “blanda hitam” does therefore not necessarily focus on the “Dutchness” of the object; it also translates as “black European”.

55. NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 929, State Commission to MinKol, 21 December 1909.

56. Memorandum from DirJus, 12 October 1933, NL-HaNA, Koloniën/Dossierarchief, 2.10.54, 748; Verslag commissie Visman, vol. 1: 99–100, vol. 2: 47–50, 58, 101–2.

57. This is due to the volatile manner of cataloguing used by the original archivists; for an explanation see: Kramer and Tempelaars, Handleiding. Unfortunately for the present article a rigorous systematic study of the papers relating to individual equations also proved impossible due to the bad state of archive accessibility. My conclusions are, however, based on a broad reading of several dozens of these cases that could be retrieved, even where I only cite one or several cases as example(s).

58. Van Marle, “De groep,” 103–7, 113–16.

59. Bijblad op het Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indië, 1914, no. 7962.

60. Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia, Jakarta, Archive Algemeene Secretarie (henceforth ANRI, AS), Ag. 17 June 1920 no. 24735, Rapport van den Controleur tbv. den Assistent-Resident van Soerabaia, 11 February 1919.

61. Bijblad, 1914, no. 7962.

62. Ibid.

63. ANRI, AS, Bt. 20 December 1935 no. 19 (Benjamin Manuputy); ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 15 (Oei Hong Tjioe); ANRI, AS, Bt. 27 November 1935 no. 28 (Abdoerradjab Daties).

64. ANRI, AS, Bt. 18 March 1915 no. 9 (Mas Soengkono); ANRI, AS, Bt. 2 February 1940 no. 7 (David Lumain).

65. Bijblad, 1914, no. 7962.

66. ANRI, AS, Bt. 16 May 1922 no. 49 (W.J. Isaacs for his foster son); ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 May 1930 no. 18 (Simon Soplanit).

67. ANRI, AS, Ag. 17 June 1920, no. 24735 (Arif Kaluku); cf. Van Marle, “De groep,” 115–16.

68. ANRI, AS, Bt. 31 December 1920 no. 48 (Raden Mas Gondhosoemeno).

69. ANRI, AS, Bt. 20 December 1935 no. 19 (Raden Oetit). On the type of jobs that were considered “European”, also cf.: Kollewijn, “Een voorstel,” 791–2; Van Tetering, “De arbeidsovereenkomst,” 454–7.

70. ANRI, AS, Bt. 27 April 1940 no. 35 (Oey Keng Hin).

71. ANRI, AS, Bt. 5 January 1940 no. 24 (Pouw Biauw Hok).

72. ANRI, AS, Bt. 15 July 1920 no. 90 (Oei Kheng Tjhoen); ANRI, AS, Bt. 9 December 1930 no. 38 (Osin bin Amiran).

73. ANRI, AS, Bt. 31 December 1917 no. 25 (Jacob Tahalele); ANRI, AS, Bt. 2 February 1940 no. 7 (David Lumain).

74. ANRI, AS, Bt. 8 February 1930 no. 27 (Yap Boon Han); ANRI, AS, Bt. 2 February 1940 no. 7 (David Lumain); ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 May 1930 no. 18 (Simon Soplanit).

75. Bijblad, 1914, no. 7962. Cf. ANRI, AS, Bt. 8 April 1940 no. 23 (Anthon Tahalele). A sentence was not even necessary, a mere reputation of wrongdoing sufficed: ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 14 (Ong Boen Hai).

76. ANRI, AS, Bt. 14 May 1940 no. 4 (Soedjono).

77. ANRI, AS, Tzg.ag. 1940 no. 5164 (D.N. François for his foster children).

78. ANRI, AS, Bt. 5 November 1935 no. 24, Letter by the Resident of Batavia to DirJus regarding Toh Sim Tjioe.

79. By the mid-1910s, there were an estimated 750,000 native Christians. Only several thousand were equated over the next years: Encyclopaedie, vol. 1: 488–90.

80. ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 17 (Andrias Andaria).

81. ANRI, AS, Bt. 14 May 1940 no. 4 (Soedjono); ANRI, AS, Bt. 20 December 1935 no. 19 (Raden Oetit).

82. ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 12.

83. The numbers are not entirely conclusive, but they do indicate a high share of Christians: Van Marle, “De groep,” 113–14.

84. Stoler, “Sexual Affronts,” 99 (emphasis on “opvoeding” in the original, emphasis on “recoded” mine).

85. E.g.: ANRI, AS, Tzg.ag. 1925 no. 19933 (Filip Kuhuwael); ANRI, AS, Bt. 31 December 1917 no. 25 (Jacob Tahalele).

86. ANRI, AS, Tzg.ag. 1940 no. 16057.

87. ANRI, AS, Bt. 31 December 1917, no. 25 (Ngadinem Tahalele); ANRI, AS, Bt. 18 March 1915 no. 9 (Saerah); ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 May 1930 no. 18 (Adriana Soplanit).

88. ANRI, AS, Bt. 31 December 1920 no. 48 (Raden Mas Gondhosoemeno); ANRI, AS, Bt. 14 May 1940 no. 4 (Soedjono).

89. ANRI, AS, Bt. 25 March 1925 no. 13. (Alexander Haurissa). ANRI, AS, Bt. 14 October 1915 no. 32 (Sjarif Achmad).

90. ANRI, AS, Bt. 2 January 1925 no. 14 (Eldat Mokoagow Lumowa). Cf. ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 16 (Romelus Pattinaja).

91. ANRI, AS, Bt. 20 December 1935 no. 19 (Benjamin Manuputy). Cf. ANRI, AS, Ag. 17 June 1920 no. 24735 (Arif Kaluku).

92. ANRI, AS, Tzg.ag. 25606/1940 (Rumulus Lawalata).

93. ANRI, AS, Bt. 20 December 1935 no. 19 (Raden Oetit). Cf. Van Marle, “De groep,” 115.

94. ANRI, AS, Bt. 5 March 1920 no. 38.

95. ANRI, AS, Bt. 21 April 1925 no. 13. Cf. ANRI AS, Bt. 20 August 1926 no. 10 (Johan de Sonnaville).

96. Stoler and Cooper, “Between Metropole,” 9.

97. On legal categorization in the French Empire, see: Saada, Les enfants. On British India: Kolsky, Colonial Justice; Fischer-Tiné, Low and Licentious Europeans. On the Philippines under American colonial administration, see the forthcoming work by Charles Sullivan (University of Michigan). Comparative work on legal pluralism in colonial empires: Hooker, Legal Pluralism; Mommsen and De Moor, European Expansion; Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures. Cf. on US immigration law, which did use “White” rather than “European” as its central discriminatory category: Haney López, White by Law.