race: between slavery and emancipation
TRANSCRIPT
Race: Between Slavery and Emancipation
Uncle Tom’s Cabin and American blackface minstrelsy in
the Netherlands from the 1840s to the 1880s
Elisabeth Koning MA History, American Studies
5951852 University of Amsterdam
[email protected] Dr. George Blaustein
June 10, 2013 Dr. Eduard van de Bilt
For my mother
Contents
Introduction 1
1. The emergence of the tension 12
- The Ethiopian Serenaders in the Netherlands: an eccentric spectacle 12
- The British and American reception of blackface minstrelsy 17
- The broad appeal of The Ethiopian Serenaders 20
- “Americanness” 25
2. The numerous messages in Uncle Tom 28
- The nature and influence of the Dutch translation of Uncle Tom 28
- Inspired by Stowe: Dutch anti-slavery accounts 33
- Uncle Tom on stage: Dutch actors as American minstrels 35
- The “Dutch” Tom play: from sympathy to racial domination 39
- The American element in the Dutch play 45
- An African American performer in the Netherlands 50
- “Yankee’s Bluff:” American minstrelsy in the Dutch Colonies 56
3. Uncle Tom: from Surinamese to Javanese 65
- The Memory of Slavery 65
- What about the Javanese? 70
- Continuation of tension with an element of class 79
- The adaptability of Uncle Tom 86
Epilogue 93
Conclusion 96
Bibliography 101
1
Introduction
Within a time period of six years, two seemingly opposite forms of American culture arrived in
the Netherlands. American blackface minstrelsy, the most popular form of American
entertainment in the nineteenth century, arrived in 1847. Six years later, arguably the most
influential novel in the American history was published in Dutch: Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle
Tom’s Cabin, or Life Among the Lowly. Whereas the first mainly ridiculed African American
slaves and freemen, the latter aimed to evoke sympathy for the African American slaves. When
these two forms of popular American culture were merged together in the so-called Tom play,
the intention and message behind the blackface performance began to become less clear. This
unclear message was especially evident in the Netherlands and its colonies, since both forms of
American culture arrived at a time when Dutch abolitionism had taken off. Moreover, this
ambiguous message allowed Dutch citizens to switch between the anti-slavery and the racial
mockery component of the message. I will argue that American blackface minstrelsy and Uncle
Tom became part of the Dutch anti-slavery and colonial discourse, revealing a tension between
race and emancipation from the 1840s to the 1880s. In other words, the message Dutch citizens
got from the American forms of popular entertainment paralleled the contemporary discourse on
race and emancipation.
Before I can explain the meaning of the “tension between race and emancipation,” a short
introduction about the nature of American blackface minstrelsy and the influence of Uncle Tom
on the American society is necessary. In 1828, the white American actor Thomas D. Rice began
to perform an act he accordingly learned by watching an old African American sing and dance.
For his character, who became known as “Jim Crow,” Rice blackened his face and hands with
burnt cork and dressed in rags, battered hat and torn shoes (figure 1). The blackening of one’s
face in combination with exaggerated red lips is simply referred to as “blackface.” In the decade
that followed, Rice and other blackface performers began to elaborate and consolidate acts
similar to Rice’s. In doing this, blackface artist used, created, and disseminated African
American caricatures. The popularity of the performances was unmatched, and a new stage genre
was born: the minstrel show. In short, “minstrel show entertainment included imitating black
2
Figure 1 - "Mr. T. Rice as Jim Crow"
Source: “Africans in America/Part 3/Jim Crow Close-up,” accessed May 28, 2013,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h489b.html.
3
music and dance and speaking in a ‘plantation’ dialect.”1 Moreover, “the shows featured a
variety of jokes, songs, dances and skits that were based on the ugliest stereotypes of [free]
African American[s, and] slaves.”2 The minstrel show became “one of the most popular genres,
if not the most popular genre, of stage entertainment in the nineteenth century” in the United
States.3
During the heyday of American blackface minstrelsy, Stowe wrote her famous
sentimental anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852). The popularity of the novel was
unparalleled: already three hundred thousand copies had been sold in the United States in the
same year of its publication. Since Uncle Tom existed of a portrayal of African Americans’ life
under slavery, it did not take long for blackface minstrels to include Uncle Tom in their shows.4
Indeed, two popular stage versions of Uncle Tom, containing an opposing message, began to
compete with each other. Whereas George L. Aiken’s version retained the antislavery content of
Stowe’s story, Henry J. Conway wrote a more “pro-Southern version” of Uncle Tom.5 Not
surprisingly, given their focus on African Americans, both blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom
played an immense role in the American discourse on race and slavery. Similarly did both
blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom fit into the Dutch discourse on race and emancipation.
What do I mean with “a tension between race and emancipation?” When the anti-slavery,
or emancipation debate became more vocal in the Netherlands during the 1840s, the Dutch
Empire existed of the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), the Cape Colony, Dutch West Africa,
Dutch Brazil, Suriname, and Netherlands Antilles. Five of these six Dutch colonies can be
described as slave societies and in three of them the overwhelming majority of slaves were of
black descent.6 Not surprisingly, both in the United States and in the Netherlands, the debate
about abolition brought along the question what one should do with the freed slaves. In
answering this question, “race” became one of the largest arguments for white men’s control
1 “Blackface! - The History of Racist Blackface Stereotypes,” accessed May 26, 2013, http://black-face.com/. 2 Ibid. 3 Popular Culture in American History, Blackwell Readers in American Social and Cultural History 1 (Malden,
Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 57. 4 Robert C. Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1974), 93. 5 Ibid., 90–91. 6 Allison Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society.
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 8.
4
over freed slaves after slavery. In this research, race refers to “the idea that the human species is
divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences.”7
One of the American founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, exemplified what happens if
one includes race into the slavery discourse. According to Jefferson, “blacks and whites could
never coexist in America because of the ‘real distinctions’ which ‘nature’ had made between the
two races.”8 Therefore, although Jefferson argued that slavery should be abolished, the freed
“blacks would have to be removed from American society.”9 A similar argument was made by
F.W. Hostmann, who lived in the Dutch colony of Suriname. He argued that the Netherlands was
not ready to free their slaves in Suriname, unless a clear emancipation process was agreed
upon.10 In the context of this research, emancipation refers to the act of freeing someone from
“restraint, control, or the power of another.”11 However, as we will see, emancipation would not
become reality. Therefore, the tension between race and emancipation can be described as the
realization that slavery should be abolished on the one hand, and the search for new forms of
domination based on perceived racial differences on the other.
After the abolition of slavery in the Netherlands and the United States, new forms of
racial dominations were quickly implemented. In the United States, for example, the notorious
Black Codes were adopted by President Andrew Johnson two years after the abolition of
slavery.12 Some of these Black Codes established “systems of peonage or apprenticeship
resembling slavery.”13 Indeed, between 1876 and 1965, the so-called “Jim Crow laws” that
mandated racial segregation in most Southern States, followed the Black Codes. Not
surprisingly, the name of the laws refers to the blackface “Jim Crow” character.14 In the Dutch
7 “Race (human) -- Encyclopedia Britannica,” accessed June 7, 2013,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488030/race. 8 Ronald T Takaki, A Different Mirror: a History of Multicultural America (New York: Back Bay Books/Little,
Brown, and Co., 2008), 64. 9 Ibid., 63. 10 F.W. Hostmann, “Royal Tropical Institute — Over de Beschaving van Negers in Amerika, Door Kolonisatie Met
Europeanen, of Beschouwingen Omtrent de Maatschappelijke Vereeniging Der Negers in Afrika, Den Staat, Waarin
Zij Door Den Zoogenaamden Slavenhandel Komen, En Later Door Abolitie En Emancipatie Overgaan 1850,”
accessed June 7, 2013, http://62.41.28.253/cgi-bin/kit.exe?a=d&d=GBHFIF1850&cl=CL2.1850&e=-0-------2en----
10--1----------IN-0. 11 “Emancipating - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary,” accessed June 7, 2013,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emancipating?show=0&t=1370593551. 12 It should be noted that I refer to the “Emancipation Proclamation” signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863,
although slavery was only officially abolished with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. 13 C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, Commemorative ed (Oxford; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 23. 14 Ibid., 7.
5
colony of Suriname, a similar system of control was introduced. The so-called Emancipatiewet
[Emancipation Law] of 1863 forced the freed slaves in Suriname to remain on the same
plantation for ten years.15
While the better part of the emancipation discourse addressed slavery in Suriname, critics
of the nature of the colonial rule in the Dutch East Indies began to raise their voices more
frequently during the 1860s. Initially, the efforts of the critics seemed to have effect. However,
the Dutch government began to strengthen their colonial rule in the East Indies around 1870,
slowly moving toward the “Ethical Policy,” which became an official policy of the colonial
government in the Dutch East Indies in 1901. This Ethical Policy is described as the Dutch
equivalent of modern imperialism, in that it justified the Dutch rule in the East Indies to
“civilize” its people.16 In a sense, the World’s Fair in Amsterdam in 1883 already marked the
victory of “race” over “emancipation” evident in the ethos of imperialism. At this Fair, the
Netherlands aimed to represent and legitimize the country’s colonial rule in the Dutch East
Indies, and “served to enhance the Netherlands’s status” among the imperialistic countries of the
world.17
Above all, the route visible in the Dutch colonies after the abolition of slavery and other
forms of legal oppression mirrored the Dutch reactions on American blackface minstrelsy, Uncle
Tom, and the Tom play. The tension between race and emancipation that became apparent in
these reactions are interesting for several reasons. First and foremost, the Dutch receptions of the
American blackface minstrelsy performances and the Tom play have not yet been discussed in
great detail by historians. Although accounts as Jacques Klöters’ 100 jaar amusement in
Nederland (1987) and Cultuur en migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in beweging 1900-1980 (2003)
edited by Maaike Meijer and Rosemarie Buikema dedicated a paragraph to the arrival of
blackface minstrelsy in the Netherlands, the accounts’ descriptions of the Dutch receptions of
blackface minstrelsy do not move beyond the general first impression of the blackface
performance. For example, these accounts omit the fact that the American blackface troupes
were British, not American. Nonetheless, this is not surprising, since blackface minstrelsy has
been mainly associated with the United States.
15 Cynthia Mc Leod, Slavernij en de Memorie (Schoorl: Conserve, 2002), 68. 16 Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden, 4. uitg. (Baarn: HB Uitgevers, 2006), 339. 17 Marieke Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles: The Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies at the World Exhibitions,
1880-1931 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2006), 317.
6
Until recently, studies about blackface minstrelsy have been predominantly written from an
American perspective. Charles Wittke’s Tambo and Bones. A History of the American Minstrel
Stage (1930), Robert C. Toll’s Blacking Up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America
(1974), Eric Lott’s Love and Theft. Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class
(1995), Michael Rogin’s Blackface, White Noise: Jewish immigrants in the Hollywood Melting
Pot (1996), W.T. Lhamon Jr.’s Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop
(2000), and John Strausbaugh’s Black Like You. Blackface, Whiteface, Insult and Imitation in
American Popular Culture (2006), are few of the many classic studies about blackface
minstrelsy in an American context. These studies have explained the origins, purpose, and
continuation of blackface minstrelsy in the contemporary society.
However, this research is mainly concerned about the form of American minstrelsy that
arrived in the Netherlands in the late 1840s, since it were the minstrel characters that would
evoke most Dutch reactions. Although most of the troupes that arrived in the Netherlands were
British, some blackface troupes that arrived in the Dutch colonies were American. Therefore, it
is important to shortly address the most popular minstrel types Americans made use of. During
the 1850s, the American minstrel characters adapted to the American social context. Since the
debate about slavery, fuelled by the publication of Uncle Tom, not only threatened the Union, but
also threatened to allow millions of blacks to “challenge whites for land, jobs, and status (…)
minstrels’ objections to slavery and their diverse black character types virtually disappeared,
leaving only contrasting caricatures of contented slaves and unhappy free Negroes.”18 The most
popular depiction of a contended, or rustic, slave was Rice’s character “Jim Crow,” mentioned
earlier. The equally popular “unhappy free Negroes,” or urban dandies, were the characters “Zip
Coon” and “Dandy Jim.” In short, Jim Crow made fun of slaves, while the urban dandies made
fun of free dignified blacks. Both the first and latter characters in a sense proved that white
domination over the black population was acceptable – if not necessary.
Given the fact that Britain had abolished slavery in 1833, British blackface minstrelsy
mainly portrayed the American minstrel dandies, instead of the plantation characters. This choice
of portrayal was only one of the many differences between American and British blackface
minstrelsy. In Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain (2008), Michael Pickering enumerates the
differences between Americans and British minstrelsy shows, and explains how British actors
18 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 66.
7
altered the American form of blackface minstrelsy to their own taste of entertainment. For the
purpose of this research, however, the reasons behind the British alternations are less interesting
than the actual British performances. Before the Dutch Tom play, Dutch citizens were mainly
acquainted with the British blackface portrayals of the American black dandies, not plantation
characters. These blackface types that the British minstrels portrayed in the Netherlands revealed
that one was not sure what free blacks should, or would, look like.
Nonetheless, Pickering notes two important differences between blackface minstrelsy in
Britain and the United States that are important to mention. First of all, “the minstrel show was a
major form of music and entertainment in Britain from the 1840s to the 1970s, rather longer than
in the United States, where it was equally popular in the nineteenth century but by the mid-
twentieth century had largely faded away.”19 Although blackface minstrelsy never, neither in its
pure form nor in the Tom play, reached the same popularity in the Netherlands as it did in Britain
and the United States, it should be noted that a famous Dutch blackface character called Zwarte
Piet [Black Pete] acquired its current-day form in 1850 – just one year after the British American
blackface minstrels had left.20 Indeed, the Dutch historian John Helsloot mentioned that is was
possible that the creator of Zwarte Piet, Jan Schenkman, got his inspiration from his attendance
of an American minstrelsy show in Amsterdam.21 However, although this research will not be
concerned with the continuation of blackface – with the exception of blackface minstrelsy types
in the Tom play until the turn of the twentieth century – it is interesting to note that blackface
minstrelsy remained popular in Britain and in a different form in the Netherlands.
Secondly, Pickering argued that blackface minstrelsy’s appeal was felt among all the
social classes in the British society.22 This is important to emphasize, since American minstrelsy
especially appealed to young working-class males.23 In contrast, minstrelsy’s appeal in Britain
“was widespread and not confined in any direct way to the ‘common people’ in the usual sense
of this term as equivalent to the working class.”24 Before the 1870s, when Dutch laborers began
19 Michael Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series (Aldershot, England;
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), xi. 20 Zwarte Piet is the sidekick of the Dutch equivalent of Santa Claus, called Sinterklaas. To this day, Zwarte Piet and
Sinterklaas return to the Netherlands between the end of November until the beginning of December. Although
protests against Zwarte Piet has erupted, Zwarte Piet is a highly valued character among a vast majority of the Dutch
citizens. 21 De Kleine Olympus: Over Enkele Figuren Uit de Alledaagse Mythologie (Amsterdam: KNAW Press, 2008), 106. 22 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, xi. 23 Ibid., 4. 24 Ibid., 2.
8
to organize and a more prominent distinction between the Dutch social classes began to emerge,
blackface minstrelsy and the Tom play appealed to both the bourgeoisie and the folk in the
Netherlands.25 By the time the number of social classes had doubled around 1870, the racial
consciousness of the Dutch citizens gained momentum due to the perceived need to help the
Dutch colonial subject acquire a certain level of civilization. As mentioned earlier, this long
process of obtaining a racial consciousness was already apparent in the Tom play.
However, the American elements of British minstrelsy were most appealing to the Dutch
audience. Indeed, the performances of the British minstrels introduced the Dutch audience with
African Americans. The American historian Toll explains that even though “white men in
blackface had portrayed Negro characters since well before the American Revolution,”
blackfaced characters became increasingly African American after the War of 1812.26 This had
everything to do with the “average” Americans’ quest for a “distinctly American culture.”27 As a
result of this quest, entertainment in the United States fragmented into “highbrow” (elitist) and
“lowbrow” (popular). As a lowbrow form of entertainment, blackface minstrelsy became “the
first and most popular form of [Atlantic] mass culture in the nineteenth century United States.”28
Ironically, whereas it was the “American” element of blackface minstrelsy British entertainers
aimed to distance themselves from, the Dutch audience seemed appealed toward the
“Americanness” of the performances.
The arrival of the popular African American actor Ira Aldridge, and the more or less
unpopular Max Havelaar play, substantiates the latter argument. Eight years after the publication
of Uncle Tom, the Dutch writer Multatuli (pseudonym for Eduard Douwes Dekker) published
Max Havelaar: of de Koffiveilingen der Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappy (1860) [Max
Havelaar: Or the Coffee Auctions of the Dutch Trading Company]. This novel criticized the
corrupt government system in Java (part of the Dutch East Indies) and the Dutch treatment of
their colonial subjects. Max Havelaar never reached the same prestige as Uncle Tom, which
indicate the appeal toward the “Americanness” of Uncle Tom. Three years after the Dutch
publication of Uncle Tom, the African American Aldridge was received with a mixture of
adoration and curiosity in the Netherlands. Aldridge’s arrival in the Netherlands emphasized the
25 Roel Kuiper, “Uittocht Uit de Standenmaatschappij,” Transparant 10.1, no. 4–7 (n.d.): 1999. 26 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 26. 27 Ibid. 28 Michael Paul Rogin, Blackface, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Hollywood Melting Pot (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996), 5; Popular Culture in American History, 63.
9
appeal to the American element. I will argue that especially the American elements of the
performances made the American cultural forms adaptable to the Dutch discourse on race and
emancipation, since it provided for a “realistic” representation of Dutch slavery. However, for
those Dutch citizens that were aware of the Dutch reality of slavery, and for those who aimed to
retain control over colonial subjects, the American element became one of the main targets for
criticism.
Aldridge’s arrival in the Netherlands was made possible by the distinct debate about
slavery in the Netherlands. The debate about slavery in the Netherlands, likewise fuelled by the
publication of Uncle Tom, did not directly threaten Dutch citizens with a prospect of free slaves
in the Netherlands, which was the case in the United States. Indeed, most Dutch citizens
experienced slavery from afar, since almost all of the slaves were located in the Dutch colonies.
However, the physical distance between the Dutch citizens and colonial subjects (slaves and
Javanese) did not prevent Dutch citizens from arguing against slavery and/or colonial rule. In
“Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial
Politics, 1840-1880” (2013), Maartje Janse outstandingly demonstrates the emerging feeling of
responsibility among Dutch citizens in the Netherlands to take care of “their” colonial subjects.
Although the Dutch abolition movement was indeed smaller than the American and British
equivalent, the visions and aims of the Dutch abolitionists are important for this research, since
they are reflected in the Dutch reception of blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom. Indeed, Janse
argued that the abolitionist debate already began to take shape in the early 1840s. This in turn,
substantiates the argument that blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom in the Netherlands already
revealed a tension between race and emancipation.
In short, this research will mainly be about the position of the American forms of culture
in the Netherlands between the arrival of the blackface minstrel troupes until the World’s Fair.
Although this research will shed some light on the discourse on race and emancipation in the
Netherlands and the Dutch colonies, this discourse is not the center of this thesis. The Dutch
discourse described in this thesis is only a small part of a larger, more global, discourse on race
and slavery. Not surprisingly, the tension between race and emancipation is a simplified
representation of reality. Not only were race and emancipation solely in conflict with each other,
the complex views on race and emancipation were not confined to a certain class or location of
Dutch citizens.
10
It should be noted that Dutch scholars have begun to refocus on the historical rendition of slavery
in the Dutch Empire in the previous decades. For example, G.J. Oostindie (2007) argued that the
memory of slavery throughout the Dutch empire today has been strongly influenced by
American slavery based on the so-called “Black Atlantic,” and not, for instance, on slavery in the
Caribbean. This lack of “local specificity (…) became only larger from the publication of Uncle
Tom’s Cabin onwards.”29 In addition, since slavery did not have the same character in different
places of the Atlantic, “the history after slavery differed as well.”30 This different Dutch
historical context during the second half of the nineteenth century has not yet been fully explored
by Dutch scholars. Nevertheless, “New Perspectives on Slavery and Colonialism in the
Caribbean” (2012) edited by Marten Schalkwijk and Stephen Small is one example of a recent
historical account that revisited Dutch slavery from a Dutch perspective. Moreover, The Dutch
Atlantic. Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation (2011) by Kwame Nimako and Glenn Willemsen
proved to be a sufficient foundation to understand the Dutch socioeconomic situation in the
nineteenth century.
Instead of the Dutch discourse on slavery, abolition and emancipation, this thesis is
predominately concerned with the reception of the American blackface minstrelsy troupes and
Uncle Tom. However, the Dutch context will explain why the Dutch Tom play differed from its
American and British counterparts. In other words, the Dutch discourse on race and
emancipation is included to make sense of these receptions and manifestations of American
popular culture in the Netherlands. Since little has been written about the Dutch Tom play and
American blackface minstrelsy in the Netherlands, this research is founded on advertisements,
articles, and reviews from newspapers in the Dutch East Indies and the Netherlands during the
nineteenth century. These historical newspapers are available in an online archive from the
Dutch Royal Library (KB). In addition, the Digital Library for Dutch Literature (DBNL) was
useful as well, for it stores many important Dutch novels from the nineteenth century, and
provides information on Dutch authors. Moreover, the online database Het Biografisch Portaal
van Nederland provided some information on the Dutch actors that would perform in the Tom
plays. Furthermore, Sarah Meer’s Uncle Tom Mania: Slavery, Minstrelsy, and Transatlantic
Culture in the 1850s (2005) proved to be very beneficial in making sense of the early Tom play
29 Gerrit Jan Oostindie, “Slavernij, Canon En Trauma” (Universiteit Leiden, 2007), 13–14. 30 Ibid., 14.
11
performances. Last but not least, the website dedicated to Uncle Tom’s Cabin & American
Culture directed by Stephen Railton from the University of Virginia contained a clear overview
of the popularity of Uncle Tom and made the scripts of different versions of the American Tom
play accessible for the public.
In order to reveal the continuing tension between race and emancipation visible in the
Dutch reception of American blackface performances, Uncle Tom, and the Tom play, the first
chapter will demonstrate the early presence of the tension between race and emancipation in the
Dutch slavery discourse. In doing this, the Dutch receptions of the American blackface
minstrelsy will be discussed, followed by a comparison with the British and American receptions
of blackface minstrelsy. Moreover, the appeal of American minstrelsy among all social classes in
the Netherlands will be explained by looking at the “American” character of the performances.
The second chapter will clarify how the popularity of Uncle Tom helped succeed Dutch
abolitionist to abolish slavery. Afterwards, the popularity of the Tom play in the Netherlands,
partly due to its “Americanness” and its aspects of blackface minstrelsy, will unravel the Dutch
discourse on slavery and emancipation. Moreover, Aldridge’s visit to the Netherlands and the
different reception of American blackface minstrelsy in the Dutch colonies will be explained in
this chapter as well. Chapter three demonstrates how the tension between race and emancipation
continued after the abolition of slavery. Consequentially, while still focusing on the elements
described in the previous chapters, this last chapter includes the discourse about the Dutch East
Indies and a growing class dissent to reveal the shift toward racial domination that had begun to
take shape during the 1840s. All in all, these American forms of popular culture proved to be
adaptable to Dutch society.
12
1 - The emergence of the tension
This chapter reveals that the prospect of emancipation of slaves in the Dutch colonies was
already a part of the Dutch discourse on slavery during the 1840s. The reviews about the visit of
the British American blackface minstrelsy troupe at the end of the decade reveal that the tension
between race and emancipation, which will remain evident throughout the next chapters, was
already present in the 1840s. Furthermore, this chapter will accentuate that the nature of the
fascination toward the minstrel troupe in the Netherlands differed from the American and
British’s appeal toward minstrelsy.
The Ethiopian Serenaders in the Netherlands: an eccentric spectacle
In July 1847, the first “American” blackface troupe, by the name Neger Lantium Ethiopian
Serenaders (figure 2), arrived in the Netherlands. The minstrels were described as “five persons
pretending to come from the inland of Africa,” dressed to the latest fashion, “which creates an
eccentric contrast with their black faces, especially when one adds, that some of them are
provided with an elegant watch, indeed one even carried a lorgnette.”31 This, in combination
with the “marvelous gestures” provided for a “most eccentric spectacle.”32 Moreover, now and
then, the minstrels jumped from their chair into the air, while playing music that was “fully
unknown” to the audience, yet caused “great enjoyment.”33 Needless to say, the above
description fits the American blackface minstrel dandy type (figure 3). They act silly, and their
“refined” outfits make a strange combination with their black faces. In other words, black people
dressed to the latest fashion were perceived as odd: the blacks portrayed by the minstrels did not
concur with one’s image of blacks. What kind of image of blacks did one have?
The reference to “Ethiopians” in the name of the troupe suggests that the minstrels or
advertisers aimed to portray people of the “African race.” Therefore, the review can be perceived
in light of the so-called “science of race” that had begun to take shape during the eighteenth
century. The German Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), for example, created a
31 Jacques Klöters, 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland ( ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987), 35. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.
13
Figure 2 - Announcement performance of "Neger Lantium Ethiopian Serenaders"
Source: “Advertentie,” Utrechtsche provincial en stads-courant: algemeen advertentieblad, July 21, 1847.
Figure 3 - The blackface dandy type "Zip Coon"
Source: 460px-Zip_Coon,_1834.jpg (JPEG-afbeelding, 460x599 Pixels), accessed June 7, 2013,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Zip_Coon%2C_1834.jpg/460px-
Zip_Coon%2C_1834.jpg.
14
classification of humanity in three groups: the Caucasians, the Ethiopians, and the Mongolians.34
According to Blumenbach, the Caucasians were the “most handsome and becoming,” while “his
description of Ethiopians reads like a caricature.”35 The “science of race” was also practiced in
the Netherlands. In making his classification, Blumenbach used the findings of the Dutch
anatomist and zoologist Pieter Camper (1722-1789). Like some earlier scientist, Camper “found
that quantification of the physical characteristics of different racial groups aided in their
classification.”36 By using a so-called “facial angle,” Camper measured the physical
characteristics from the general European to the monkey.37 This theory was famously advanced
by the American Samuel Morton in the mid-nineteenth century.38
Not surprisingly, the science of race resulted in an increasing interest in “blackness.” As
the American historian John Strausbaugh mentions, “the practice of displaying Blackness for
enjoyment and edification of the white viewers” existed centuries before the visit of The
Ethiopian Serenaders.39 One of the most famous examples of this fascination with Africans was
the display of the African Sarah Baartman, who first appeared in London in 1820. Interestingly,
she was “owned” by the Dutch, who settled in the Cape of Good Hope where Baartman’s people
(the “Hottentot,” or Khoikhoi) lived.40 As early as 1803, “John Kickerer, Dutch member of the
London Missionary Society, went to Holland” to introduce three Hottentots who “made a deep
impression.”41 The Hottentots were especially fascinating because they were considered to be the
missing link between monkeys and humans.42 Similarly, according to Maaike Meijer and
Rosemarie Buikeman, The Ethiopian Serenaders left a certain impression behind of black
people: “Negroes dance silly, one thought, animal-like and without control.”43 This comparison
between monkeys – or animals in general – will remain an important element in both Uncle Tom
and American blackface minstrelsy.
34 Jan Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture. (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 46. 35 Ibid. 36 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 185. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 186. 39 John Strausbaugh, Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult & Imitation in American Popular Culture (New
York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2006), 36. 40 Ibid., 47. 41 Hans Werner Debrunner, Presence and Prestige: Africans in Europe. A History of Africans in Europe before 1918
(Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 1979), 218. 42 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 41. 43 Maaike Meijer and Rosemarie Buikeman, eds., Cultuur En Migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in Beweging 1900-
1980 (Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2003), 231.
15
Both the reference to “Ethiopians” and the perceived odd combination of a black man dressed to
the latest white men’s fashion reveal that the seeds for a tension between race and emancipation
were already visible with the arrival of the Serenaders. This is important to note, since an anti-
slavery sentiment among a large part of the Dutch public began to increase in the years prior to
the Serenaders’ visit. Indeed, the Dutch historian Maartje Janse argued that the rise of the Dutch
abolition debate, or moral activism, in the 1840s demonstrates the same sentiments that are
usually connected to the introduction of the Dutch Ethical Policy.44 It should be noted that before
the 1840s – over the preparation of the new Constitution by the National Assembly in 1797 – a
parliamentary debate on slavery in the Netherlands had begun to take shape.45 However, this
protest against slavery during the late eighteenth century was “mainly in the form of protests on
paper – at that time no antislavery organizations were established, while at the same time in
Great-Britain a hitherto unknown wave of public protest swept the nation.”46
Nonetheless, according to Janse, in the period between 1840 and 1880, hundreds or
thousands Dutch citizens became increasingly concerned with the lives of colonial subjects. This
concern, partly sparked by the British and Foreign Antislavery Society (BFASS), resulted in the
foundation of the first Dutch antislavery society in 1841, called the Nederlandsche Maatschappij
ter Bevordering van der Afschaffing der Slavernij [Dutch Society for the Promotion of the
Abolition of Slavery].47 However, their effort to persuade the Dutch King to abolish slavery was
not successful.48 Indeed, the Dutch government forbade “them to ever publish or be active in the
colonies, and also implored the antislavery advocates to discontinue their activities in order to
give the government the opportunity to investigate the possibility of abolishing slavery.”49
Needless to say, the planters in Suriname strongly argued against the abolition of slavery. The
“planters argued that emancipation would not only threaten the colonies but that, through the loss
of colonial trade upon which everyone’s prosperity was based, the existence of the mother
44 Maartje Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial
Politics, 1840-1880,” BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review 128, no. 1 (2013): 79. 45 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 59. 46 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 63. 47 Ibid. 48 “Het Reveil in Nederland (1817-1854),” Historisch Nieuwsblad, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/25934/het-reveil-in-nederland-1817-1854.html. 49 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 63.
16
country itself would be gravely endangered.”50 Moreover, the plantation owners in the Dutch
West Indies (the Netherlands Antilles) delayed the abolition of slavery while demanding
compensation for the loss of their human property.51
The rather restricted freedom of movement of the established antislavery society did not
stop individual Dutch citizens that were concerned about the situation in the colonies to pick up
their pens. For instance, in 1842, Marten Douwes Teenstra wrote the anti-slavery account De
negerslaven in de kolonie Suriname [The negro slaves in the colony of Suriname] in which he
discussed the harsh treatment of “negro slaves” in Suriname.52 Although Teenstra clearly
opposed slavery, he did not advocate his anti-slavery feelings directly to white slave owners in
Suriname.53 Yet his account did help stimulate the emergence of a larger protest movement,
which contested “the nature of colonial rule.”54 Indeed, the “moral indignation over colonial
issues shaped Dutch political life in an important formative stage.”55 The new constitution in
1848 had reinvented the role of Dutch citizens in the political process, which ignited “a sense of
responsibility towards colonial subjects and consequentially” demanded “political change to
alleviate the suffering.”56 In other words, already at the end of the 1840s, the “moral sentiments
with regard to the colonies were increasingly translated in political statements.”57 Although the
“sense of moral responsibility” convinced Dutch citizens of the need to abolish slavery, the
reviews about the Serenaders gave the impression that one was not sure what free slaves should
look like. Did British and American receptions of blackface minstrelsy reveal a similar tension
between slavery and emancipation? What kind of feelings did the minstrel performances evoke
by American and British audiences?
50 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 59. 51 Kwame Nimako and Glenn Frank Walter Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic: Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation
(London; New York, NY: Pluto Press, 2011), 93. 52 DBNL, “Marten Douwes Teenstra, De negerslaven in de kolonie Suriname · dbnl,” accessed May 22, 2013,
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/teen002nege01_01/teen002nege01_01_0013.php#13. 53 J.S. Weerden, van, “Marten Douwes Teenstra in Suriname, 1828-1834. Een Groninger Pionier in de West.,”
KITLV/ Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (1968): 173, www.kitlv-
journals.nl/index.php/nwig/article/viewFile/5282/6049. 54 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 57. 55 Ibid., 55. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid., 56.
17
The British and American reception of blackface minstrelsy
The British and Dutch context in which the American minstrel troupes would arrive differed
from the American context in one prominent way: slavery was more notable in the United States.
The American historian Eric Lott explains blackface minstrelsy’s appeal toward the American
working class by revealing the ambiguity of “blackness” in the minstrel shows, and the mixed
political and racial feelings these performances aroused. According to Lott, during the 1830s,
white American laborers in the North began to identify themselves with black slaves. However,
when upper-class reformers began to refer to the laborers as so-called “wage slaves,” white
laborers began to distance themselves from a possible coalition with free black laborers, and
consequentially from abolitionism.
In the late 1840s, while the North and South were competing over their modes of
economic production, the white Northern laborers were conflicted over whether to oppose wage
slavery – with that the Northern form of production – or chattel slavery – forcing the South to
follow the Northern mode of production, yet force the laborers to remain victims of wage
slavery. In the United States, “slavery, not antislavery, prevented the full-circle critique of
capitalism on behalf of all workers.”58 In other words, “capitalism was ultimately the enemy [of
the working-class], but racial feeling the immediate obstacle; energies directed against the state
apparatus might too easily join those focused on black people.”59 Indeed, “class straits may
energize interracial cooperation, but they are also often likely to close down the possibility of
interracial embrace.”60 The mixed feelings described above were especially apparent in the
popular blackface stage adaption of Uncle Tom in the United States. The blackface audience both
felt connected to the African Americans minstrels portrayed, and felt like they belonged to the
upper-class for mocking African Americans.
Blackface minstrelsy did not reveal the same struggle between loyalties of race and class
in the Netherlands. The Dutch socioeconomic context differed significantly from the United
States. First of all, by the time the industrialization in the Netherlands had begun between the
1860s and 1870s, and labor movements developed accordingly, slavery had been abolished in
58 Eric Lott, Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, Race and American Culture
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 237. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid.
18
both the Netherlands and the United States.61 This, and the lack of an enslaved black presence in
the Netherlands, prevented the Dutch laborers from identifying themselves directly with slaves.
Indeed, whenever someone did occasionally make a comparison between slaves and laborers,
they normally emphasized the worse condition of the slaves. For example, in an article about the
French pamphlet De l’esclavage moderne (1839) of Félicité Robert de Lamennais, the author
denied the presence of “contemporary slavery.”62 According to Lamennais, the lower classes of
the French society were fully dependent on the rich, “the capitalist.”63 According to the Dutch
reviewer, however, capitalism was not the cause of wage slavery. The real cause was the natural
order God provided. Indeed, the author claims that the laborer is not even fully dependent on the
low wages of the capitalist: the laborer can find another job that provides a better salary.64
The Dutch appeal toward American blackface minstrelsy was, therefore, more in line
with the reception of minstrelsy in Britain. According to the British historian Michael Pickering,
the main reason for the long-enduring popularity of blackface minstrelsy in Britain was the
distinctive character of British blackface performances. Although the development of British
minstrelsy in some ways paralleled “its American counterpart,” Pickering argues that the British
“incarnation developed quite differently, as did the reasons for its long-enduring popularity.”65
Indeed, exactly the absence of American characteristics of blackface minstrelsy made the British
variant a continuing success that appealed to all social classes in Britain.66 For example, after the
mid-nineteenth century, the British minstrel troupes added an orchestra in their shows, and began
to center the “comic elements on the caricature of the ‘nigger’ dandy,” moving away from the
poorly entertaining American “crude representation of real negro life.”67 In doing this, the link
with African American culture visible in the original American blackface minstrelsy became
“even more tenuous.”68
Nevertheless, neither the tenuous link with African American culture, nor the fact that the
troupe that visited the Netherlands was British, makes the performances less “American.” As
61 H. de Vos, Geschiedenis van Het Socialisme in Nederland in Het Kader van Zijn Tijd (Baarn: Het Wereldvenster,
1976), 29. 62 “Over de hedendaagsche Slavernij,” Vlissingsche courant, February 11, 1840. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, xi. 66 Ibid., 21. 67 Ibid., 19–20 and 25. 68 Ibid., 20.
19
Pickering emphasized, the boundaries between American and British minstrelsy became blurry
because of the continuous trafficking between them.69 Moreover, it should be noted that the
authenticity of blackface imitations is not as important as the perception of the Dutch audience.
In other words, whether the blackface minstrels truthfully depicted African Americans or not – if
an authentic imitation is possible in the first place – the performances added to the Dutch
audience’s knowledge of African Americans. In fact, knowledge about African Americans prior
to The Ethiopians Serenaders’ performance was small to non-existing, as will be discussed in
greater detail later. In addition, in contrast to the United States, British troupes “had no direct
symbolic bearing on a substantial black population.”70 The relatively small amount of black
people residing in Britain “undoubtedly added to the novelty attraction of blackface musical
entertainments.”71
According to the American historian John G. Blair, direct knowledge of blacks were not a
requirement to understand blackface performances: “Blackface minstrels were created in the
USA to entertain white audiences with little or no direct knowledge of the blacks who were
being portrayed in the performance.”72 Indeed, characters like “Jim Crow” satisfied “white
Northerners’ growing curiosity about blacks and especially slaves at a time when slavery was
becoming a major national controversy.”73 Furthermore, characters as “Zip Coon” and “Dandy
Jim” revealed the white Northern anxieties about the growing black presence in the urban areas.
These characters caricatured “free Negroes as silly black buffoons.”74 In general, the “humor [of
blackface minstrelsy] works on its own terms and requires no knowledge of African American
behavior – and just as well, because most Europeans had none.”75 However, it has to be noted
that the success of American minstrelsy in Britain was partly due to their corresponding
language. According to Blair, blackface minstrels “their dependence on audiences fluent in
English limited the extent to which minstrels could penetrate the Continent.”76
69 Ibid., 4. 70 Ibid., 74. 71 Ibid., 76. 72 John G. Blair, “Blackface Minstrels in Cross-Cultural Perspective,” American Studies International 28, no. 2,
Special Issue on the Impact of US Culture Abroad (October 1990): 60. 73 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 34. 74 Ibid., 68. 75 Derek B. Scott, Sounds of the Metropolis: The Nineteenth-century Popular Music Revolution in London, New
York, Paris, and Vienna (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 146. 76 Blair, “Blackface Minstrels in Cross-Cultural Perspective,” 61.
20
Despite the supposed language barrier, the “American” blackface troupe that visited the
Netherlands was British. Even though there was an American minstrel troupe called The
Ethiopian Serenaders (also known as Boston Minstrels) which “left for a successful English
tour” in 1846, we can determine with certainty that The Ethiopian Serenaders that visited the
Netherlands were not American.77 Not only did the Dutch advertisements emphasize the troupe’s
popularity in London, where they were well received and enjoyed “general approval” for two
years, the American troupe left Britain for the United States in 1847. Moreover, the American
minstrels existed of G. Pelham, G. Harrington, W. White, G. Stanwood, and H.G. Sherman,
while the Ethiopian Serenaders that visited the Netherlands were referred to as Dryce, Laurain,
Adwin, Morley and Steiner.78
Additionally, as became evident from the Dutch reviews about The Ethiopian Serenaders,
the British Ethiopian Serenaders “wore white waist coasts and conventional tailcoats rather than
plantation costume, and offered entertainment ‘on a far higher plane than others’.”79 Indeed, The
Ethiopian Serenaders were one of the first “refined” British minstrel troupes in the mid-1840s,
“which no longer ‘relied chiefly on the humorous element for their success’ but mixed this with
great variety, skillful harmonizing and more emphatic sentimentality.”80 As described earlier, in
focusing on the dandy type, the connection with African American slave culture visible in the
original American blackface minstrelsy became tenuous. Therefore, the first portrayal of African
Americans that the Dutch audience came into contact with was the dandy figure. Who made up
“the Dutch audience,” and what aspect of the performance did they find especially appealing?
The broad appeal of The Ethiopian Serenaders
A dominant part of the Dutch appeal toward the British blackface minstrel troupe was based on
pure curiosity. It was not a coincidence that the minstrels performed during the kermis – which
77 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 37. 78 “New-York Daily Tribune. (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, September 08, 1843, Image 3,” September 8, 1843,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1843-09-08/ed-1/seq-
3/#date1=1836&index=10&rows=20&words=Ethiopian+ETHIOPIAN+SERENADERS+Serenaders&searchType=
basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=%22ethiopian+serenaders%22&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=year
Range&page=1. 79 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 18. 80 Ibid.
21
often took place between September and November. The Dutch kermis of the nineteenth century
was more than a fair – it was a true folk festival.81 The kermis offered an interruption from the
usual life which mostly consisted of work:
By offering the opportunity of new experiences, impressions and news, one skillfully
responded to the existing needs for knowledge, amazement, fear, and beauty. The
multiple forms of entertainment the kermis offered give a lively image of the culture of a
folk – in its most essential and expressive form. (…) One learned about far countries and
regions from museums their (…) collection of ethnological.82
The blackface minstrel performance fits this description perfectly. As mentioned earlier, The
Ethiopian Serenaders played music that was “fully unknown” to the audience. Interestingly, the
audience learned about the supposedly Ethiopian race and/or culture by attending a show of The
Ethiopian Serenaders. Indeed, the description about the Lanthum Ethiopian Serenaders in a
nineteenth-century booklet of the exhibition about the kermis in Amsterdam reads: “This
performance of white people blackened like negroes was the first acquaintance of the Dutch
public with the American negro-music.”83 This novelty aspect of the blackface performances
most likely caused the appeal toward this kermis attraction. This appeal, in turn, was strong. In
1848, for instance, kermis director R. Kinsbergen thanked the great turnout of people in an
advertisement in the Algemeen Handelsblad on behalf of himself and the negro singers that
accompanied him.84 This begs the question: Who visited the kermis?
According to the Dutch historical sociologist G.H. Jansen, the kermis was loved by the
upper and lower class of the Dutch society during the eighteenth century.85 A similar audience
visited the kermis in the nineteenth century: “Amsterdam looked like one big theater during the
kermis. People from all walks of life came in droves to the city theater at the Leidseplein.
Despite the poverty, everyone had money to spare for a few hours of entertainment.”86 Although
the minstrel shows were probably not the only curiosity that attracted the audience during the
kermis, the presence of a relatively poor audience does concur with the observation of the
81 Maria Keyser, Paul Blom, and Jacques Klöters, “Komt Dat Zien. De Amsterdamse Kermis in de Negentiende
Eeuw” (Toneelmuseum Amsterdam, 1976), 2. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid., 12. 84 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, September 9, 1848. 85 G.H. Jansen, Een Roes van Vrijheid. Kermis in Nederland (Amsterdam: Boom Meppel, 1987), 43. 86 Keyser, Blom, and Klöters, “Komt Dat Zien. De Amsterdamse Kermis in de Negentiende Eeuw,” 11.
22
American historian Jim Cullen, that in the United States “the most surprising growth” caused by
minstrelsy “occurred in the poor audience.”87 Moreover, according to Lott, the “minstrel show
brought [American] classes together through common racial hostility.”88 Although it is hard to
determine whether Dutch audiences shared a similar common racial hostility, they sure did share
a common curiosity toward blacks.
Indeed, given the diverse locations where the Serenaders performed, all social classes
were able to attend a show. For example, The Ethiopian Serenaders performed in Utrecht in a
hall next to theater, in cafes like the Nieuw Koffijhuis in Rotterdam, the Locaal in Middelburg,
and in a venue called the Duizend Kolommen in Amsterdam.89 The latter hall was described as
bright, and the walls were vested with mirrors. In this venue, audiences who liked magicians,
ventriloquists and “other arts,” would probably “get its money’s worth.”90 In other words, these
venues seemed easily accessible to the lower class of the Dutch society. In contrast to these
locations there were also royal theaters.
After the performances of The Ethiopian Serenaders in Utrecht and Amsterdam, the
troupe began to be announced with the name Lantum Negerzangers van Amerika, or simply the
Negerzangers van Amerika [Negro-singers from America]. With the latter name, the troupes
began to perform in royals theaters as the Koninklijke Nederduitsche Schouwburg in ’s-
Gravenhage (now The Hague) and the Koninklijke Zuid-Hollandsche Schouwburg in
Rotterdam.91 It is hard to determine why the troupe began to be announced as “American”
instead of “Ethiopian.” However, the alteration of the name reveals that the audience had begun
to perceive blackface minstrelsy as distinctively “American.” Moreover, probably to lure a more
bourgeois audience, which the British troupes initially had in mind in Britain, the advertisements
emphasized that the British Queen and Dutch King had enjoyed the performances multiple
times.92
87 Popular Culture in American History, 63. 88 Lott, Love and Theft, 154. 89 Scott, Sounds of the Metropolis, 145 and “Advertentie,” Nieuw Rotterdamsche courant: staats-, handels-, nieuws-
en advertentieblad, March 8, 1849 and “Advertentie,” Middelburgsche courant, December 2, 1848, Klöters, 100
Jaar Amusement in Nederland, 34-5. 90 H.J. Scharp, “Koninklijk Oudheidkunde Genootschap Te Amsterdam, Jaarverslag in de Zeventigste Algemeene
Vergadering Op Maandag 21 Mei 1928” (1928): 43. 91 “Advertentie,” Rotterdamsche courant, August 14, 1847 and “Advertentie,” Nederlandsche staatscourant, August
10, 1847. 92 Scott, Sounds of the Metropolis, 145.
23
Despite the alteration of the troupe’s name, the performances were practically the same. Both the
illustration of the Negerzangers van Amerika (figure 4) and the program indicate that the
performance was mostly concerned with the “dandy” minstrel type. Songs that were performed
included De Elegante Neger op het Bal (probably related to “Nigger Ball,” or “The Colored
Fancy Ball”93) and O! Mijnheer Koen (which might refer to one of the many “coon songs” 94).
Other songs were Marie Blanck, Het Meisje van Baffalan and De Oude Tante Sally. These song
names were most likely the translations of the popular minstrel songs “Mary Blane,” “Buffalo
Gals,” and “My Old Aunt Sally.”95 Remarkable is the inclusion of the anti-slavery song “Mary
Blane,” since the Dutch King was a proponent of slavery.96 Indeed, the Dutch King “considered
colonial rule to be his royal prerogative.”97 However, regardless of King Willem II’s feeling
towards slavery, the King appreciated how the negro singers sung negro songs and imitated
negro dances.98 Surely, this appreciation had much to do with the funny portrayal of dandies.
Indeed, although a possible language barrier mentioned earlier might have influenced the
King’s understanding of the anti-slavery song, reviews about the performance reveal that the
blackface minstrels were chiefly hailed for their comical appearance. In a review in the Nieuwe
Rotterdamsche courant, the authors wrote that the show “truly surpassed our expectations.”99
One of the performers, Dryce, made them laugh over and over again due to “his droll postures
and grotesque body distortions.”100 Moreover, comical songs like “Buffalo Gals” were received
with laughter. The review ends with the advice that “those who love mirth” should pay a visit to
see “these darkies” perform.101 Since this positive review mostly comments on the funny
appearance of the minstrel performers, the language in which the minstrels performed might not
have been the determinative factor for appreciating this form of American entertainment. Indeed,
no mention is made about the lyrics of the music in any review.
93 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 11; Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century
America, 68. 94 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 43. 95 Ibid., 21. 96 Ibid., 58. 97 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 64. 98 “Advertentie,” Rotterdamsche courant, August 14, 1847 and “Advertentie,” Nederlandse staatscourant, October
8, 1847. 99“De Lantum Negerzangers van Amerika,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant, August 13, 1847. 100 Ibid. 101 Italic in newspaper, ibid.
24
Figure 4 - Announcement and program of the performance of "De Lantumnegerzangers van Amerika"
Source: “Advertentie,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant: staats-, handels, nieuws- en advertentieblad, August 13,
1847.
25
Therefore, language was probably not a perquisite for understanding the comical portrayal of
dandies. Indeed, whereas the Dutch King most likely mastered the English language, the diverse
locations of performance suggests American minstrelsy’s appeal among the bourgeoisie and folk
within the Dutch society. As revealed earlier, the blackface troupe, albeit under a different stage
name, performed in both prestigious theaters and smaller venues such as variety theaters.
Nevertheless, the Negerzangers van Amerika turned out be more appealing: the troupe performed
in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Arnhem, ‘s-Gravenhage, Middelburg, Leeuwarden, Leiden and other
cities between 1847 and 1849.102
“Americanness”
What made the British troupe, or advertisers, decide to alter their name? As mentioned earlier,
the right answer is hard to determine. However, the American aspect of the blackface minstrelsy
performances most likely triggered this alteration. As in Britain, the relatively small presence of
hundreds of blacks surely added to the appeal of minstrelsy in the Netherlands.103 However, the
relative absence of blacks in the Dutch society did not mean that the audience did not have an
established image of blacks in their minds. Indeed, the fact that a connection between the
blackface artists and blacks in Africa was made in a review suggests that the Dutch audience
possessed a certain amount of knowledge about blacks and their supposed culture. This notion is
reinforced by Allison Blakely’s Blacks in the Dutch World: The Evolution of Racial Imagery in a
Modern Society (1993). As the title suggests, the American historian Blakely explored the
depiction of blacks in Dutch paintings, architecture, and literature from the eighteenth to the
twentieth century. However, the images discussed by Blakely until the mid-nineteenth century
were primarily Dutch images based on blacks from the African continent, not the United States.
Similarly, Teenstra’s anti-slavery account, which provided knowledge of slaves in Suriname, did
not focus on the United States either.
102 “Advertentie,” Nederlandse Staatscourant, October 7, 1847; Middelburgsche courant, December 12, 1848;
Leeuwarder courant, June 5, 1849; Rotterdamsche courant, August 12, 1847; Algemeen Handelsblad, October 11,
1847 and Arnhemsche courant, October 6, 1847. 103 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society, 225.
26
This did not mean that the Dutch society could not acquire knowledge about African Americans
at all. In 1827, for example, the Dutch translation of the American novel The Spy (1821) from
James Fenimore Cooper was published in the Netherlands.104 According to American linguist
Catherina Juanita Starke, who explored stereotypical portrayals of African Americans in
American literature, The Spy contained the “first full-length portrait of the contented slave”
called Caesar.105 According to Starke, the sole reason for an accommodative slave in a “novel is
to serve others and do what he is told to do,” while his function is also “to lighten tensions.”106
Indeed, Caesar’s name, personality and physical appearance provide for some comic relief
throughout the novel.107 For example, at one point, Cooper’s description of Caesar “rises in
comic intensity and becomes ludicrous caricature.”108
However, this small African American role in the novel did not catch a lot of attention in
the Netherlands. Indeed, no mention was made of Caesar in Dutch reviews. Praises ranged from
a simple “plot and characterization in (…) The Spy are well done”109 to “The Spy – undoubtedly
one of his best novels” is “entertaining” and “important.”110 In another review, Cooper is praised
for his “kind of description, by which he enables the readers to participate in the action.”111
Additionally, although the Dutch translation of The Spy reveals that American images of African
Americans were available to the Dutch public, we should take into account that not every Dutch
citizen was able to read in the beginning of the nineteenth century. While the members of the
elite and middle-class were able to read, illiteracy was not uncommon under the unemployed, the
farmworkers and small farmers, and servants in the Netherlands. It was only in the course of the
nineteenth century that 75 percent of the Dutch population learned how to read.112
Nonetheless, it was not the “blackface” element alone that attracted the Dutch audiences.
Centuries before the existence of the popular American blackface minstrelsy, blackface was
104 J.G. Riewals en J. Bakker, The Critical Reception of African American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900.
A Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals. (Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V., 1982), 71. 105 Catherina Juanita Starke, Black Portraiture in American Fiction. Stock Characters, Archetypes, and Individuals.
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1971), 30. 106 Ibid., 34. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid., 31. 109 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 76. 110 Ibid., 94. 111 Ibid., 97. 112 DBNL, “Marita Mathijsen, Het literaire leven in de negentiende eeuw · dbnl,” 7, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/math004lite02_01/math004lite02_01_0003.php.
27
already a familiar theatrical device in Europe.113 The blackfaced Moor –in Shakespeare’s
Othello, the Moor of Venice – for example, was a popular figure on the stage in London and the
Netherlands in the late eighteenth century.114 Since Dutch audiences were already familiar with
both blackface performances and depictions of blacks in Dutch paintings, architecture, and
literature, it seems likely that the enthusiasm of the Dutch reviewers was directed at the
American component of the performance. Moreover, the “fully unknown” music, “marvelous
gestures,” and “droll postures and grotesque body distortion” reveal the factors that make
American blackface minstrelsy American. Indeed, American blackface minstrelsy required
music, dancing and minstrel types that were all supposedly modeled after African Americans.115
In addition, given the change in the troupe’s name, and in contrast to the British troupes’ aim to
move away from the American element of blackface minstrelsy, its “Americanness” was
precisely what seemed to appeal to Dutch public – as was the case in the United States.
According to Strausbaugh, minstrelsy’s “Americaness was a big part of its appeal” in the United
States from the late 1820s into the early 1840s.116
Whether or not the Dutch public added the “American” minstrels show to their
knowledge of black and white culture in America, the most popular “purely American form of
entertainment” had reached the Netherlands by 1847.117 The merely laudatory remarks about the
portrayal of the dandy already revealed an underlying tension of the emerging discourse on
slavery. What does a freed slave look like? So far, the focus on the dandy figure instead of the
African American slave did not fuel sympathy toward slaves. However, the publication of
Stowe’s Uncle Tom five years later, “the first American novel with blacks as its central
characters,” would provide the Dutch audience with an opposing image of African Americans,
increasing the tension between abolition on the one hand, and emancipation on the other.118
113 Strausbaugh, Black Like You, 62. 114 Ibid., 63 and “Tooneelbericht,” Rotterdamsche courant, November 25, 1797. 115 Carl Frederick Wittke, Tambo and Bones: a History of the American Minstrel Stage (Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1968), 1–9; Strausbaugh, Black Like You, 69. 116 Strausbaugh, Black Like You, 72. 117 Wittke, Tambo and Bones, vii. 118 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 88.
28
2 – The numerous messages in Uncle Tom
Did thou read Uncle Tom’s Cabin? But what a question! Who did not read that book?
Thou are responsible for the scenes that are depicted in the novel, and thou think about
our colonies, especially about Suriname! But do not worry; the situation of the slaves
there is, under a Dutch government, a lot more bearable and happy than their pitiable
peers in America.119
This excerpt fueled with sarcasm from an anti-slavery novel, written by the Dutch abolitionist
Wolbert Robert van Hoëvell, clearly reveals the influence of the publication of the Dutch
translation of Uncle Tom on the Dutch discourse on slavery. A sense of moral obligation to
change the situation in the Dutch colonies becomes evident. As Janse explained, the publication
of sentimental anti-slavery narratives, and especially the perceived helplessness of colonial
subjects, “triggered the urge to defend them.”120 Yet as this chapter will reveal, these helpless
victims were not fully ready for freedom. Indeed, the colonial subjects were not even equal to
Dutch citizens.
The nature and influence of the Dutch translation of Uncle Tom
In comparison to Cooper’s The Spy in 1827, the now more or less literate Dutch public was able
to gain more knowledge about African Americans by reading the Dutch translation of Stowe’s
Uncle Tom that was published in 1853. The novel, which follows two slaves that are coping with
the cruel institution of slavery, caused a lot of commotion in the United States. Not only was the
novel written by a woman, she addressed a painful political issue: slavery. Stowe wrote Uncle
Tom in reaction to the recently implemented Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which authorized real
Southerners to pursue real slave fugitives on Northern soil and forbade Northerners to provide
shelter to runaway slaves.121
Not surprisingly, as in the United States and the rest of Europe, Uncle Tom made a deep
impression on contemporary Dutch readers. In line with the portrayal of “dandies” in the
119 DBNL, “W.R. van Hoëvell, Slaven en vrijen onder de Nederlandsche wet · dbnl,” 48, accessed May 5, 2013,
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoev004slav01_01/hoev004slav01_01_0003.php?q=. 120 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 74. 121 Paul S Boyer, The Enduring Vision: a History of the American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008), 401.
29
minstrel show a few years earlier, the Dutch historian Jan Nederveen Pieterse explained that
slavery was relatively invisible in the Netherlands: “If slaves were depicted it was often
incidentally and as a part of some other subject represented. Invisibility was one way in which
slavery was kept psychologically at bay.”122 However, Uncle Tom would make slavery visible.
Already in that same year, a Dutch reviewer stated that Uncle Tom “has been read and reviewed
more extensively than any other book written by a contemporary writer.”123 Indeed, the
publication of Uncle Tom would encourage the Dutch abolitionist to continue their fight against
slavery.
One of the direct consequences of the publication of Uncle Tom was the revival of the
depressed anti-slavery movement in the Netherlands. Indeed, the Dutch anti-slavery society
mentioned in the previous chapter was revived directly after the publication of Uncle Tom in
1853. One of the revivers, the Dutch politician Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, made use of the
outrage caused by Uncle Tom amongst Dutch readers to bring the society back to life.124
Although Janse argued that the participation of young people and working-class women in the
Dutch abolitionist movement are still underexposed, reviews about Uncle Tom reveal both
women’s identification with the female slaves in Uncle Tom, and Uncle Tom’s initial appeal to
youthful readers.125 For example, a reviewer in 1853 pointed out that some “extraordinary scenes
in the original book (the flight of Eliza, and her escape with George to Canada) have been left
out” – scenes which “are especially suited to the taste of youthful readers.”126
Eliza is one of the slave characters in Uncle Tom. In the beginning of the novel, Eliza’s
slave owner Arthur Shelby is forced to sell Eliza’s son Harry out of economic necessity. When
Eliza gets hold of Shelby’s plans, she escapes from the plantation with her son and flees to
Canada. The night before Eliza’s escape, Eliza’s mulatto husband George Harris, who is in the
possession of another slave owner, had decided to flee to Canada as well. In the end, Eliza’s
family is reunited. This storyline protests the Fugitive Slave Act mentioned earlier, since
122 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 53. 123 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 235. 124 “Het Reveil in Nederland (1817-1854).” 125 Maartje J Janse, “De afschaffers: publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland 1840-1880”
(Wereldbibliotheek], 2007), 103. 126 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 235.
30
Northerners were not allowed to give Eliza and Harry shelter during their escape. Needless to
say, this storyline is also about the cruel separation of family members during slavery.
Despite this sad story about separation, the first versions of the Dutch translation of
Uncle Tom seemed to focus on the scenes that centralized rapprochement and reconciliation. In
an article about the illustrations in the Dutch translations of Uncle Tom, the Dutch art historian E.
Kolfin revealed in what way the choice of illustrations contributed to the perception of slavery in
the Netherlands.127 Kolfin argued that the first Dutch publication of Uncle Tom differed from
previous slavery iconography in that it possessed scenes of rapprochement and reconciliation.128
In a way, these illustrations indicated that black and white people could eventually live alongside
each other. One example of this was the illustration that depicted George Shelby kneeling over
the dying Uncle Tom, which “suggests reconciliation and love.”129
Arthur Shelby sold Tom alongside Harry. After being sold a few times, Tom ends up as
the possession of a cruel slave owner called Simon Legree, who eventually tortures Tom to
death. Before his death, George Shelby, the son of Arthur Shelby, visits the Legree plantation
with the aim of buying Tom back. Unfortunately, he arrived too late. In Tom’s storyline,
Christianity plays an important role. Tom, who sacrifices himself for God, proves that slaves can
become good Christians. This Christian message in Uncle Tom was important. As Janse
explained, “freeing of slaves and rescuing the Javanese contributed to the self-image of the
Netherlands as a civilized, Christian nation.”130
Given the domestic sphere women were confined to during the nineteenth century, it is
not surprising that the first all-women petition was on behalf of slaves.131 As Janse explained;
When representations of suffering slaves entered their homes, women sometimes stepped
out of the domestic sphere and crossed the boundaries of what was considered suitable
gender behaviour. The women who organized all-women antislavery petitions denied that
theirs was a political protest, they simply claimed to have transgressed their female
sphere to answer the heartfelt cry and represent the slave women because they had no one
else to speak for them.132
127 E Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica,” Maatschappelijke
Stromingen in de Kunst. Leidschrift 17, no. 3 (2002), http://bukubooks.wordpress.com/oom_tom/kolfin/. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 75. 131 Ibid., 74. 132 Ibid.
31
This involvement of women became clear in reviews about Uncle Tom as well. According to a
review written by a preacher called B.T. Lublink Weddik, “by and large Dutch women readers
have come to love Uncle Tom; the religious principle that animates his heart finds an echo in the
female heart.”133 Remarkably, in the same review, Weddik wrote that gentleman readers put
forward a “somewhat different” opinion: “After duly acknowledging the author’s rare, artistic
talents, some of them have not shrunk from noting a dangerous trendiness, a too hasty zeal for
the cause of Abolition.”134 Some of these gentlemen believed that “by representing the slave
traders as black devils and the negroes as black angels Mrs. Beecher has created dramatic
contrasts but violated the truth.”135
However, this “violation of the truth” did not mean that the scenes about slavery in the
United States were inaccurate. Another reviewer, for example, claimed that although the “scenes
[in Uncle Tom] have been colored, and fictionalized, (…) they are not untrue to life, nor made
up.”136 Indeed, even Weddik wrote that the novel was “a collection of genuinely American
characters that have been imagined and brought to live with great artistry.”137 Weddik’s
emphasis on the fact that the novel depicts American slavery, in combination with his earlier
remark about slave traders being depicted as “black devils,” reveals that he was rather careful in
drawing parallels between slavery in the United States and the Dutch colonies. This perceived
distance was emphasized by another reviewer known under his pseudonym Phileleutheros:
Much has been said about slavery, but it has remained something remote from one’s daily
life. With the publication of Uncle Tom one finds oneself participating in the world of
slavery, one gets involved in the oppression of the slaves, and one is made a witness of
the great human qualities these humiliated human beings also appear to have.138
However, besides the fact that Dutch citizens generally experienced slavery from afar, this
excerpt reveals that Uncle Tom seemed to have become the truthful depiction of slavery – not
Teenstra’s account on slaves in Suriname discussed in the previous chapter. This did not mean
that one opposed abolitionism. As seen in the previous chapter, emancipation of the slaves was
133 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 237. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid., 234. 137 Italics added. Ibid., 238. 138 Ibid., 239.
32
already a clear goal in the 1840s. Another review substantiates this notion: “The disquisition on
slavery in the book is a reiteration of familiar truths.”139 In other words, one strived for the
emancipation of the slaves, yet was not really sure what to do after slavery had been abolished.
Indeed, this detachment from Dutch slavery, and the imagined realistic depictions of
Stowe’s characters, reveals an underlying skepticism about the nature of Dutch slaves. For
example, a Dutch reviewer noted that Christianity does not come naturally:
He [Tom] remains true to what he believes and is freer than all the whites he served
because of his Christian belief. He has no proofs for his belief, but he knows because he
feels it is true. Such a character is not necessarily ‘unrealistic,’ even if it is very unlikely
that one will ever meet him in real life.140
Not only does this excerpt reveal that in most cases a religious education was necessary in order
to practice Christianity, it also states that a self-thought religious slave is practically absent. This
reveals an already forthcoming tension between race and emancipation.
Nevertheless, unlike in the United States, where Americans were more directly
confronted by slavery, Dutch citizens did generally experience slavery from afar. Given the
physical and relatively psychological distance, it is only logical that Dutch citizens questioned
whether the American characters in the book were true to life.141 Indeed, even Stowe
acknowledged the difficulty readers had deciding whether Uncle Tom was fiction or reality.
Therefore, Stowe wrote A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1853, which was translated into Dutch in
that same year under the heading De Slavernij: Vervolg en Sleutel op De Negerhut.
Needless to say, this book was supposed to explain how one should read Uncle Tom, and
what to make of it. In her introduction, Stowe wrote that even though her novel was a work of
fiction, the story was a “collection and arrangement of real incidents, of actions really performed,
of words and expressions really uttered.”142 Although “the character of Uncle Tom has been
objected to as improbable,” Stowe has “received more confirmations of that character, and from
a great variety of sources, than of any other [character] in the book.”143 Overall, Stowe’s
139 Ibid., 238. 140 Ibid., 240. 141 Ibid., 239–240. 142 Harriet Beecher Stowe, The key to Uncle Tom’s cabin : presenting the original facts and documents upon which
the story is founded : together with corroborative statements verifying the truth of the work (London: Clarke,
Beeton, and Co., 1853), B. 143 Ibid., 37.
33
justification for the foundation of her characters provided in A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin were
agreed upon by Dutch reviewers. For example, a reviewer stated that “the author proves that her
fictional characters have sprung from reality, not merely from fancy.”144 Stowe’s characters were
perceived as reality, yet not necessarily Dutch reality in itself. Not surprisingly, Dutch
abolitionist picked up their pens to convince the audience that Uncle Tom could just as well have
been a slave in the Dutch colonies.
Inspired by Stowe: Dutch anti-slavery accounts
In 1853, for example, J. Wolbers wrote De Slavernij in Suriname, of Dezelfde gruwelen der
slavernij, die in de “Negerhut” geschetst zijn, bestaan ook in onze West-Indische koloniën! [The
slavery in Suriname, or: the horrors depicted in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, exist in our West Indian
Colonies too!].145 As the title suggests, just as Groen van Prinsterer, Wolbers made use of the
public indignation against slavery caused by Uncle Tom to find support for his cause. However,
according to the Dutch historian M. Kuitenbrouwer, in addition to Uncle Tom, “the Dutch
public’s interest for the slavery question was predominately stimulated by the publication of (…)
Slaven en vrijen onder de Nederlandsche wet [Slave and Free under the Dutch law] of Van
Hoëvell in 1854,” and not by Wolbers’ account.146
Wolbert Robert van Hoëvell, provided the Dutch public with “a dramatized depiction of
slavery in Suriname.”147 In doing this, Van Hoëvell refuted multiple Dutch arguments that
claimed that slavery in the Dutch colonies was not as bad as in the United States. One of these
refuted arguments was the believed fact that slave children could not be separated from their
slave mother by Dutch law. Although such a law did exist, Van Hoëvell explained how slave
owners tried to circumvent it.148 Van Hoëvell ends his novel with an “impassioned plea for the
144 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 247. 145 J Wolbers, De Slavernij in Suriname, of Dezelfde Gruwelen Der Slavernij, Die in de “Negerhut” Geschetst Zijn,
Bestaan Ook in Onze West-Indische Koloniën! (ten Voordeele van de Emancipatie Der Slaven) (Amsterdam: H. de
Hoogh, 1853). 146 M Kuitenbrouwer, “De Nederlandse Afschaffing van de Slavernij in Vergelijkend Perspectief,” BMGN: Low
Countries Historical Review 93, no. 1 (1978): 82. 147 Ibid. 148 DBNL, “W.R. van Hoëvell, Slaven en vrijen onder de Nederlandsche wet · dbnl,” 53, accessed May 5, 2013,
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoev004slav01_01/hoev004slav01_01_0003.php?q=.
34
immediate abolition of slavery.”149 In contrast to the reception of Uncle Tom – which was
generally positive – Van Hoëvell’s account provoked protests in Suriname.
This protest might have been caused by Van Hoëvell’s focus on conflict rather than
Stowe’s reconciliationist message, as Kolfin suggested.150 These situations of conflict between
“black and white” were almost always violent.151 Not surprisingly, of the illustration printed in
Slave and Free, only one out of six focused on reconciliation. Another reason for Slave and
Free’s lack of appeal was the ironical tone that becomes apparent from the excerpt at the
beginning of this chapter.152 In addition, the “cruel and bloody descriptions, poignant moments
that are described, and the absence of an unctuous Christian message make the novel less
suitable for the general public that plunged itself so eagerly on the Cabin.”153 Needless to say,
Slave and Free did not become as successful as Uncle Tom, and did not “influence the public
opinion to the same extent as Uncle Tom did.”154 Indeed, one preferred Stowe’s depiction of
slavery over Teenstra or Van Hoëvell’s depictions.
Moreover, as was initially the case for Uncle Tom, some readers argued that Van
Hoëvell’s account was not based on reality.155 Ironically, the reaction about the “unrealistic”
nature of Van Hoëvell’s account suggests that one perceived the less cruel American novel as
more realistic in relation to the Dutch colonies. Furthermore, although Van Hoëvell had
“undoubtedly enlarged the interest for slavery and emancipation,” in the end, his account “only
confirmed already established opinions.”156 Needless to say, at least a part of these established
opinions must have been related to the enormously popular Uncle Tom. Moreover, the need felt
by Wolbers and Van Hoëvell to refute these kind of arguments and to compare slavery in the
United States with the situation in the Dutch colonies only emphasizes that Uncle Tom was
perceived as “American.”
Nevertheless, the influence of Uncle Tom was not bound to Dutch literature that
addressed slavery. In 1860, under the pseudonym Multatuli, Eduard Douwes Dekker, a close
companion of Van Hoëvell, wrote Max Havelaar, in which he addressed the abuse of Javanese
149 Kuitenbrouwer, “De Nederlandse Afschaffing van de Slavernij in Vergelijkend Perspectief,” 82. 150 Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.” 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 Ibid. 154 Ibid. 155 Kuitenbrouwer, “De Nederlandse Afschaffing van de Slavernij in Vergelijkend Perspectief,” 83. 156 Ibid.
35
subjects in the Dutch East Indies. Because of the continuing success of Uncle Tom in the
Netherlands, the comparison between Stowe and Dekker was made instantly.157 More
importantly, Dekker himself drew an example from Stowe’s novel. He knew the success of
Uncle Tom laid in the fictional, emotional element of the story, not the factual elements.158
Nevertheless, although the publication of Max Havelaar caused turmoil in the Netherlands – a
lot has been written and said about it – the book “did not have direct political consequences” as
Uncle Tom did.159
Last but not least, given the long tradition of depicting Africans in paintings and
architecture in the Netherlands, it is not surprising that Uncle Tom became easily incorporated in
Dutch popular culture. For example, a collection of sketches by the popular Dutch artist Charles
Rochussen – who drew the title pages of one of the many publications of Uncle Tom – were
“inspired by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”160 And in 1854, an Uncle Tom
calendar titled Uncle Tom’s Almanak 1854 existed of scenes from the novel.161 Just as the books
that appeared about slavery in Suriname after Uncle Tom’s publication, it did not take long for
Dutch artists to portray “Negro life in Suriname.”162 In short, Uncle Tom stimulated an
increasing interest of the Dutch public in their colonies.
Uncle Tom on stage: Dutch actors as American minstrels
The influence of Uncle Tom even traveled beyond literature and art. As in the United States and
Britain, one could watch the melodrama Uncle Tom in the Dutch theaters from 1853 onwards.
Not surprisingly, in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, the slaves were portrayed by
white actors in blackface. Therefore, instead of making their own minstrel shows, a variety of
Dutch troupes began to perform Uncle Tom in blackface. The American linguist Sarah Meer
describes the history of Uncle Tom’s reception and stage adaption in the United States and
Britain during the 1850s. According to Meer, Uncle Tom was easily converted into a melodrama
157 H.S. Taekema, “Een Roman Als Aanklacht: Over Uncle Tom’s Cabin En Max Havelaar,” Rode Draad: Recht En
Literatuur AA 53, no. 11 (2004): 764. 158 Ibid., 768. 159 Ibid., 764. 160 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 155. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid., 157.
36
because of Stowe’s radical use of some blackface elements, which in turn were used in Tom
plays.163 For example, in the novel, a young slave called Topsy is explicitly called “Jim Crow”
and performs for white audiences.164 Moreover, Meer demonstrates that the famous scene
between Topsy and Miss. Ophelia borrows from blackface minstrelsy:
[Ophelia:] “How old are you, Topsy?”
[Topsy:] “Dun no, Missis,” said the image, with a grin that showed all her teeth.
[O] “Don’t know how old you are? Didn’t anybody ever tell you? Who was your
mother?”
[T] “Never had none!” said the child, with another grin.
[O] “Never had any mother? What do you mean? Where were you born?”
[T] “Never was born!” persisted Topsy, with another grin, that looked so goblin-like,
that, if Miss Ophelia had been at all nervous, she might have fancied that she had got
hold of some sooty gnome from the land of Diablerie (…)
[O] “You mustn’t answer me in that way, child; I’m not playing with you. Tell me where
you were born, and who your father and mother were.”
[T] “Never was born,” reiterated the creature, more emphatically; “never had no father
nor mother, nor nothin’. I was raised by a speculator, with lots of others.”
(…)
[O] “Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?”
The child looked bewildered, but grinned as usual.
[O] “Do you know who made you?”
[T] “Nobody, as I knows on,” said the child, with a short laugh.
The idea appeared to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she added,
[T] “I spect I grow’d. Don't think nobody never made me.”165
As Meer explained, Topsy’s “ignorance of her birth reflects the slave owner’s indifference to her
humanity,” while simultaneously providing for a comical blackface sketch.166 For instance, the
same kind of comical ignorance about life and death are visible in an act between the minstrel
stock characters Tambo and Bones:
Bones: Ah! Tambo, she’s gone dead?
Tambo: Is she dead, Bones?
Bones: Yes, Tambo. She sent for me three days after she died.
Tambo: No, Bones, you mean three days previous to her decease.
163 Sarah Meer, Uncle Tom Mania: Slavery, Minstrelsy, and Transatlantic Culture in the 1850s (Athens: University
of Georgia Press, 2005), 59. 164 Ibid., 29. 165 “Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe: Chapter 20,” accessed May 18, 2013, http://www.online-
literature.com/stowe/uncletom/20/. 166 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 40.
37
Bones: No; she had no niece; she was an orphan.167
In addition, an article in The Literary World in 1852 explained the link between minstrelsy and
Uncle Tom: “The essence of the humor in Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was the “negro character (…)
[which is also] the element of the popular performances on the stage and elsewhere (…) [of, for
example], the Ethiopian Serenaders, the Christy minstrels.”168 This humor could be described as
one “of a crude and obvious kind, easily intelligible; it requires no delicate sense of perception to
understand, no cultivated taste to enjoy. It is a humor wondrously popular (…).”169 As revealed
in the latter article, Uncle Tom borrowed blackface imagery and characterization. Indeed,
according to Meer, the blackface elements in Uncle Tom “can be seen to form part of the secret
of Uncle Tom’s broad popularity and apparently infinite adaptability.”170
In the United States, two competing stage adaptations of Uncle Tom were most popular:
the play from George L. Aiken, and Henry J. Conway.171 Both Aiken and Conway’s version
made use of melodramatic and moral drama theatrical forms. As Meer explains, the
“melodramatic conventions demanded an emphasis on scenery and spectacle, while [minstrel]
stage traditions shaped characterization, language, and gesture.”172 Although Aiken and
Conway’s version parallel the original storyline from the novel, and consequentially “retained
something of Stowe’s antislavery tone,” there was a clear difference between the adaptations.173
For instance, in Aiken’s version Uncle Tom dies. In contrast, in Conway’s version “the
production ended happily with Uncle Tom being melodramatically rescued from Simon Legree
just in the nick of time.”174 Yet “both Aiken and Conway drew on minstrelsy in their
iconography and in the linguistic structures of their comedy.”175 For example, “Topsy sings and
dances in both Conway and Aiken.”176 This in turn, reveals that the American Uncle Tom
productions “were commercial before they were political, and their conscription of minstrelsy
167 Ibid. 168 “Literature.: The Uncle Tom Epidemic. Little Henry and His ...,” The Literary World (1847-1853) 11 (December
4, 1852): 355. 169 Ibid. 170 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 11–12. 171 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 90–1. 172 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 111. 173 Ibid. 174 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 91. 175 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 123. 176 Ibid.
38
was directed by the popularity of its generic conventions, as was their use of sensational and
moral melodrama.”177
However, it did not take long for the Tom play to become political. According to Meer,
when Uncle Tom “transferred to the London stage, it became a vehicle for popular British
attitudes to slavery as well as to the United States.”178 However, Meer also argued that the Tom
plays “thrilled to ‘foreign’ spectacles of ‘Americaness’.”179 Moreover, Meer explains the most
important difference between the American and British adaptations of Uncle Tom:
The British melodramas and the American “moral” Uncle Toms should be regarded as
completely distinct varieties of adaptation. For a start, theater historians have not treated
the London Tom plays as particularly significant, whereas great claims have been made
for George Aiken’s dramatization –that it was the first six-act play, performed without
afterpieces, that it was the first to create dignified “black” roles, and that it attracted a
new kind of audience to the theater. Hence, it is held to have earned its recognized place
in a national [American] tradition. The British plays, on the other hand, (…) merely
attempted to meet the expectations of the audience, and they made few claims to a
grander moral purpose (…). And as with all those who adapted Stowe’s novel for their
own purposes, British playwrights and theater managers made it their own.180
Similarly, the Dutch Tom play should be regarded as distinct from the British and American
versions, in that it adapted to the Dutch discourse on race and emancipation. The Dutch version
was a translation of a French production that had been written by two vaudeville playwrights
called Philippe François Pinel Dumanoir and Adolphe D’Ennery.181 The play was translated by
Cornelissen and Beems.182 The Dutch play differs from the British and American versions in one
prominent way: some characters were left out, while other fictional characters were added to
Stowe’s original story, creating freedom for Dutch actors to adapt Uncle Tom to the
contemporary Dutch issues.183
177 Ibid., 129. 178 Ibid., 133. 179 Ibid. 180 Ibid., 136. 181 “Advertentie,” Utrechtse provinciale en stads-courant, July 22, 1853 and Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom.
Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch Door Cornelissen En Beems. (S̀
Gravenhage,, 1854), http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3138395. 182 Regrettably, I was not able to find more information on the Dutch translators. 183 From now on, I will refer to the French production as “Dutch” to make it less confusing.
39
The “Dutch” Tom play: From Sympathy to Racial Domination
Bengali and Philemon were two of the interesting black characters added to the story.184
Especially Bengali was met with approval. In 1853, for example, a reviewer in the newspaper of
Leeuwarden wrote that “Mr. Hamecher represented the funny negro Bengali so hefty, that he
received the approval of the audience multiple times.”185 Moreover, in 1862, a slightly negative
review about the misrepresentation of the novel stated that “Mr. Wijnstok certainly knew how to
provide the young negro Bengali with a very characteristic comic tone,” which subsequently was
met with general approval.186 Who was Bengali? In one of the Dutch scripts, Bengali and
Philemon are described as “archly negroes,” and in the scene in which they are introduced,
Bengali and Philemon are performing “comical dances.”187 Not surprisingly, Bengali and
Philemon are both typical minstrel types. In one dialogue, for example, a typical question-answer
routine that is visible in minstrel shows stands out:
Tom: [about Philemon’s behavior towards Bengali] Yes: he wants to do your work,
because you hit him if he does not do it. It is bad, very bad, to abuse his power: it is bad
to raise your hand against him.
Philemon: [in bad Dutch] shy. Ah! I not knew that… Father Tom, I swear, never I raise
hands against Bengali.
Tom: taking a step back. Never?
Philemon: Never raising the hand. Whispering aside, I always kick him with feet.188
The rest of the play is filled with similar simple comical jokes between Bengali, Philemon, and
the other characters. It is remarkable that the characters talk in a “negro dialect,” since in the
Dutch translation of the novel all the so-called “Negro speech” of characters like Topsy and Tom
184 Unfortunately, I was not able to find a copy of the French script. Therefore, I cannot determine whether the same
dialogues were used in the French version. However, the fact that one decided to use this version, and not one of the
many available versions in the United States and Britain, we can suggest the French version was deemed more
suitable for the Dutch public. 185 “De Kermis,” Leeuwarder courant, July 22, 1853. 186 “Concert en tooneelnieuws. Amsterdam, zondag 2 maart,” Algemeen Handelsblad, March 3, 1862. 187 De Negerhut, Tooneelspel in Acht Tafereelen. Getrokken Uit Den Roman van Dien Naam van Ms Beecher Stowe.
Naar Het Fransch van Dumanoir En D’ennery. (Amsterdam: M. Westerman & Zoon, 1862), 7. 188 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 27.
40
were replaced by proper Dutch.189 It should be noted that the Dutch translation of Uncle Tom
was not the only language in which the Negro speech was absent. The German translation, for
example, was also written in proper German. Indeed, it would not be surprising if most of the
translations of Uncle Tom – if not all – lacked the Negro speech, since it was an American
literary tradition. Either way, the Negro speech of Bengali and Philemon in the Dutch Tom play
was consciously created, mirroring them to popular American minstrel characters.
Bengali and Philemon were deemed such an essential addition to the story that they have
one act for themselves. In this scene, Bengali hits the sleeping Philemon twice. When Philemon
woke up, Bengali denied that he hit him.190 Similar practical jokes wherein “their humor seemed
only gross and physical” were a part of a common minstrel act.191 The two quarrel back and forth
until Bengali suddenly informs Philemon that he will be free in the near future. Bengali
explained to Philemon that he had saved the sick monkey of his mistress from dying by giving
him a drink and a footbath, which in turn made Bengali’s mistress promise Bengali to free him,
and leave her fortune to him when she passes away.192 Since his mistress is very ill, Bengali was
really happy and began to sing “the good mistress will die soon, the good mistress will die
soon.”193 The scene ends with Bengali and Philemon happily singing and dancing together.194
This scene is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it reveals that a “good mistress” does not
make slavery any better. Bengali, a dumb slave, still prefers his freedom. Secondly, the story
between the monkey and Bengali seem to respond to the “science of race” discussed in the
previous chapter. Of all people, Bengali, representing a “missing link,” knew how to save the
monkey. Clearly, this scene provides an anti-slavery message, while simultaneously revealing a
certain perception of the black race. This tension between abolitionism and racial hierarchy
becomes more evident in the subsequent scenes.
Later on in the play, Bengali’s mistress died and he gained his freedom and inherited his
mistress’ fortune as promised. Immediately after becoming a free man, the now rich Bengali
189 James Nathan Tidwell, “Mark Twain’s Representation of Negro Speech,” American Speech 17, no. 3 (oktober
1942): 174–176, doi:10.2307/486791. 190 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 32. 191 Constance Rourke, American Humor. A Study of the National Character (Garden City, New York: Doubleday &
Company, Inc.,, 1953), 87. 192 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 33–4. 193 Ibid., 34. 194 Ibid.
41
buys Philemon.195 When Bengali arrives on stage again in a scene with Bird – a Northern senator
who voted for the Fugitive Slave Law – he is “dressed as gentleman.”196 Remarkably, this is the
only scene wherein the clothes of a character are described in detail: “Bengali is dressed to the
latest fashion: a white hat, with white tie and white gloves.”197 In addition, Bengali looks through
a lorgnette when he greets mister Bird, who breaks out in laughter the second he laid eyes on
Bengali.198 Later on, Bengali let Bird know that he also bought a watch and necklace from the
money he inherited.199 As described in another publication of the Dutch script, Bengali’s “way of
expression, and his persistent failure to remember the new class he placed himself in, are very
droll.”200 Similarly, there is a dandy figure in Stowe’s novel called Adolph, “very like the
blackface dandy, typified by Zip Coon, in his dress, manner, and speech.”201 However, as Meer
explained, Adolph “is not a sentimentalized version of a blackface tradition.”202 Besides,
Adolph’s role in both Conway and Aiken’s version of the Tom play is limited in comparison to
Bengali’s role.203
This detailed description of Bengali’s clothes reveals its importance: without these
clothes, the scene would not be as funny. The fact that Bengali’s manner of clothing is discussed
in the first place suggests that it was abnormal for a negro to “dress like a gentleman.”204 More
importantly, the description of the clothes concurs with those in the review of the American
minstrel show in 1847, as described in the first chapter. The minstrels from The Ethiopian
Serenaders were also dressed to the latest fashion and one of them wore a lorgnette. This
underlying suggestion that blacks are not supposed to dress the same as whites, reveals the
uncertain place free blacks would have in the Dutch society.
195 Ibid., 42. 196 De Negerhut, Tooneelspel in Acht Tafereelen. Getrokken Uit Den Roman van Dien Naam van Ms Beecher Stowe.
Naar Het Fransch van Dumanoir En D’ennery., 8. 197 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom.Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 49. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid., 50. 200 De Negerhut, Tooneelspel in Acht Tafereelen. Getrokken Uit Den Roman van Dien Naam van Ms Beecher Stowe.
Naar Het Fransch van Dumanoir En D’ennery., 8. 201 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 41. 202 Ibid. 203 “Aiken’s Uncle Tom,” accessed May 18, 2013, http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/osplglaaV1t.html;
Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 122. 204 De Negerhut, Tooneelspel in Acht Tafereelen. Getrokken Uit Den Roman van Dien Naam van Ms Beecher Stowe.
Naar Het Fransch van Dumanoir En D’ennery., 9.
42
In addition, Philemon follows Bengali “dressed as a Groom with a little monkey on his arm.”205
Needless to say, especially the deemed similarities between the monkey and the black race add a
comical feature to the scene. Senator Bird emphasizes this similarity when he laughingly states:
“Seriously, what is the difference between this … Pointing to Bengali … and that! Pointing to
the monkey. Yes indeed, there is a difference: the monkey is less stupid and does not speak!
…”206 The African race-monkey connection does not end here. Later in the play, when Bengali
introduces himself to the slaver Haley, Bengali proudly says: “Me, free man: and monkey, also
free man!”207 These scenes clearly reveal how one perceived the “black race” in the Netherlands
during the nineteenth century: that they were closer to animals than to the white man.
Above all, the inadequate way Bengali handles being a freeman emphasized the larger
debate in the Netherlands, and within the Dutch Tom play, about emancipation. The main voices
within this Dutch emancipation debate argued for the education of freed slaves in order to
prepare them for participation in the “civilized world.” Moreover, after the abolition of slavery,
this comical dandy figure reinforced “the idea that a colonial presence was required to ensure a
paternalistic regulation of conduct in countries overseas.”208 Indeed, already in the Dutch Tom
play in 1853, Bengali keeps forgetting that he is not a slave anymore, something Philemon has to
remind him of over and over again. For example, when the doorbell rings, Bengali shouts that he
is coming until Philemon hits him saying: “What, you free man, serve whites!” Bengali
responds: “You are right, I command to go, you.” On which Philemon responds: “And I forbid
you, to command me.” Bengali lets it go, whispering “O, I an ugly slave have, ugly slave!”209
Clearly, Bengali embodied “the standard blackface argument against freeing the slaves, that they
could not stand on their own two feet.”210
One scene later, Bengali and Philemon step out into the rain. Bengali opens his umbrella
when Philemon takes it out of Bengali’s hands and walks off. Bengali calls after him: “O, I have
an ugly slave, ugly slave, I!”211 Moreover, at the slave auction scene, Bengali aims to sell
205 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 49. 206 Ibid. 207 Ibid., 56. 208 Scott, Sounds of the Metropolis, 147. 209 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 57. 210 Lott, Love and Theft, 195. 211 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 58.
43
Philemon without his knowledge, because Philemon keeps hitting Bengali, and because he ran
out of money since his monkey ate too much. Bengali tries to sell Philemon to the slaver Haley,
but Haley is not interested. Instead, Haley tries to buy Bengali: “Listen, Bengali, do you want to
sell yourself? I offer you five hundred dollars.”212 Bengali considers it for a moment, but decides
to sell Philemon instead. When Philemon is called upon the auction block, without his
knowledge or consent, he fakes an injury and coughs a lot to take revenge on Bengali.213
Eventually, Philemon gets sold for only twenty-five dollars, and Bengali takes up the earlier
offer made by Haley to become his slave. This auction scene seems to resemble the Conway
version in that his slave auction scene was “treated lightly.”214 This scene does not only
emphasize that Bengali was not suited, or at least not ready, to be a free man, it also reveals
Bengali’s willingness to let Haley take care of him. Furthermore, the fact that Haley offers to buy
Bengali seems to function as a justification for the paternalistic efforts to educate the colonial
subjects without coercion.
Interestingly, the Dutch version used two fictional characters, instead of Stowe’s Topsy,
to provide for comic relief. Indeed, Bengali fits Starke’s description of the “buffoon:” a
“powerful stock character, the roots of which extend back to Topsy (…) [who] is the ludicrously
comic Negro whose only literary purpose is to amuse.”215 Furthermore, “the popularity of the
strictly comic image is due in large part to its continued use in minstrel shows by Negroes and
whites in blackface.”216 In this light, Stowe’s explanation of Topsy’s character is even more
remarkable: according to Stowe, “Topsy stands as the representative of a large class of the
children who are growing up under the institution of slavery, – quick, active, subtle and
ingenious, apparently utterly devoid of principle and conscience, keenly penetrating, by an
instinct which exists in the childish mind (…).”217 This representation of childish slaves aligns
with the overall opinion about “the negro race that they are frivolous and vain, passionately fond
of show, and are interested only in trifles.”218 Not surprisingly, in a New York Times review of
1852, the author declared that “one of the best sketches in the book is that of a little black imp,
212 Ibid., 91. 213 Ibid., 94. 214 Ibid., 91. 215 Black Portraiture in American Fiction., 65. 216 Ibid., 65–6. 217 Stowe, The Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin : Presenting the Original Facts and Documents Upon Which the Story Is
Founded : Together with Corroborative Statements Verifying the Truth of the Work, 91. 218 Ibid.
44
by name Topsy, who loves lying for the sake of lying, who is more mischievous than a monkey,
and in all respects as ignorant.”219 Needless to say, the above characteristics of lying, childish
behavior and being compared to a monkey are both visible in scenes with Topsy and Bengali.
Other characters are left out as well. The cruel slave owner Simon Legree, for example, is
embodied by George’s owner Harris in the Dutch version. Consequentially, Uncle Tom gets
nearly killed by the Quimbo brothers of which Harris orders them to “shatter the bones” of
Tom.220 However, in contrast to the Aiken version, and similar to Conway’s version and several
British versions, the Dutch version had revoked “the martyr’s death Stowe had reserved for
Tom.”221 As Tom, characters as St. Clare, one of Tom’s owners, avoids the death in the Dutch
version. Instead, St. Clare goes bankrupt, and is forced to sell his slaves.222 Moreover, St. Clare’s
daughter, Eva, is called Dolly in the Dutch Tom play. Not surprisingly, as opposed to the novel,
Dolly does not die either.
Last but not least, senator Bird, absent in the Aiken and British versions, is depicted as
the white savior. In one of the last scenes, Bird and Harris are just getting into a rifle duel when
George steps in to take Bird’s place.223 This rifle duel was not present in Stowe’s novel, neither
in Aiken and Conway’s stage adaptations. According to Meer, “a Spectator review of a French
Uncle Tom speculated that the introduction of a rifle duel and the change of a character’s name
had been effected to make the drama seem more American.”224 This is interesting, since as
discussed earlier, “Americanness” seemed to create a certain distance from the Dutch slavery
situation. However, eventually, George kills Harris. Unfortunately, George did not know that
Harris had ordered Quimbo to throw his son Henry (or Harry) into the river if Harris did not
show up to claim Henry himself.225 In this way, Eliza would lose either her husband George or
her son Henry. Luckily, when George shot Harris, Bird shot Quimbo and saved Henry.226 After
this scene, the severally wounded Tom arrives on stage, bends over the body of Harris, and
219 “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” Littell’s Living Age no. 35 (October 16, 1852): 439. 220 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 110. 221 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 137. 222 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 79. 223 Ibid., 114. 224 Ibid., 142. 225 Ibid., 111. 226 Ibid., 117–8.
45
begins to beg God to forgive Harris his sins.227 Needless to say, given the Dutch involvement in
slavery, it is not surprising that the ending of the Dutch Tom play emphasized God’s forgiveness
of Harris. Harris only did what he thought was right. The Dutch citizens in the colonies,
therefore, were forgiven for their participation in slavery.
The American element in the Dutch play
Why did the Dutch actors use the French script, and not the English or American scripts? Was it
because the French script provided scenes as the rifle duel, which supposedly made the Tom play
more “American?” So far, the Dutch, or French, version finds many similarities with the Conway
version. As seen before, Conway’s version makes the harsh scenes more bearable by using
humor, and saving Tom, Eva or Dolly, and St. Clare from dying, while Aiken’s version holds on
more closely to the anti-slavery message visible in Stowe’s novel. Why did one perform the
French version of the play, and not the American or English version? As opposed to the United
States, the novel was met with almost exclusively positive reviews in the Netherlands. Reviews
ranged from a simple “the Cabin has been favorably received in this country, and this is
fortunate,” to a prediction of “a new genre of slave-Tom literature.”228 Why then, did the Dutch
theaters not stick to a more accurate version of Stowe’s Uncle Tom, like the version from Aiken?
Does this have anything to do with the tension between race and emancipation?
One of the main reasons could be the “Americanness” the French and British versions
supposedly possessed, and the American versions (or at least the Aiken version) lacked. As
discussed earlier, after the publication of Uncle Tom in the Netherlands, the novel was received
as a purely American novel. Although the reviews were favorable, and opposition against slavery
increased thanks to the novel, the situation sketched by Stowe remained to be viewed as an
American situation. Hence the sudden increase in Dutch publications against slavery in the
Dutch Empire. However, in making the play even more “American” than the novel, the theaters
seemed to ensure that they further diminished the connection with slavery in the Dutch Empire.
Indeed, the Tom play was foremost about slavery in the United States. As written in a review
227 Ibid., 118. 228 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 236 and 239.
46
about Uncle Tom in 1853: “The Unites States of America suffer from a cancerous disease
[slavery].”229 Even though one did drew parallels between American slavery and slavery in the
Dutch colonies from the novel, the Tom play seemed to depict American slavery.230
Moreover, as publishers had tried to do with the selection of illustrations, the Tom play
had the freedom to solely portray the scenes the Dutch audience wanted to see. As seen earlier,
many scenes of the Tom play justified colonial rule. While the sentimental novel emphasized
anti-slavery, the Tom play used the freedom to emphasize that the abolition of slavery was not
enough: Dutch citizens should be aware that freed slaves have to be prepared for their freedom.
Other didactical messages were also present in the Tom play. According to Meer, “the
melodrama” had a “tight control over audience reactions and, like the sentimental novel, used it
didactically.”231 Indeed, the “moral drama” caused a shift in the make-up of the audience, as
people used “the stage to advocate moral reform.”232 However, since the Tom play was portrayed
as an American situation, “moral reform” did not necessarily refer to the situation in the Dutch
colonies.
The less popular stage adaptation of Multatuli’s Max Havelaar confirms the preferred
distance from slavery in the Dutch Empire, or the extra appeal to American slavery. Only eleven
years after the publication of Max Havelaar, the play could be seen in various theaters and
saloons in at least 1871 and 1891, and well into the twentieth century.233 A reason for the fairly
late and less popular stage production of Multatuli’s novel might be that the slavery debate of the
East Indies was perceived as closer to home than Uncle Tom. Moreover, three years after the
publication of Max Havelaar, slavery was “successfully” abolished in the Dutch Empire, which
changed the focus of the emancipation discourse from abolishing slavery to taking care of the
free slaves. However, the less popular Max Havelaar play could just as well suggest the
tremendous popularity of the Tom play. Indeed, in an article in 1891, the author stated that the
case of Multatuli was not widely known back in 1871, and had already been forgotten about by
the time the author wrote this article.234
229 Ibid., 242. 230 Ibid., 244. 231 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 110. 232 Ibid. 233 “Publieke vermakelijkheden. Amsterdam,” Het nieuws van den dag: kleine courant, March 7, 1871. 234 “Het tooneel,” Het nieuws van den dag, January 14, 1891.
47
In addition, Max Havelaar might have been less adaptable to a melodrama. In 1896, the long
lasting impression of Uncle Tom in the Netherlands became clear in an article: “There have been
written more powerful books that caused great revolutions, Max Havelaar from our Multatuli for
example, but none more sincere, no more heartfelt work than Uncle Tom’s Cabin has ever flown
from a pen.”235 Indeed, according to the Dutch linguist Olfert Praamstra, people unduly
compared Max Havelaar to Uncle Tom, since the latter was “written very actively.”236 Max
Havelaar lacked the systematically subtle argument against the institution Multatuli discussed. In
contrast, Stowe found a “harmony between symbolism and reality.”237 Even in 1927, the abuse
of so-called contract-coolies in the Dutch East Indies were compared to “a state of slavery as
described in the well-known novel ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’,” instead to Max Havelaar, who
discussed this region in his novel.238 This likewise seems to reveal the changing perception about
racial domination after the abolition of slavery: the Cultivation System in the Dutch East Indies
was at least no slavery.
Regardless of the reasons why Dutch theaters performed the French version of Uncle
Tom, the Tom play became very popular in the Netherlands.239 In May 1853, an advertisement in
the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage announced that the directors of the Salon des
Variétés, P. Boas and N. Judels would provide the audience with a “new big melodrama” called
De Negerhut van Oom Tom, or “Slave and Mother.”240 The Tom play would be performed during
the kermis of ‘s-Gravenhage, and in Haarlem a month later.241 In the same month, a short
paragraph in the newspaper of Utrecht stated that “in almost every newspaper of those cities,
where a kermis entertains its audience constantly, we see that Uncle Tom is mentioned, which
will be performed by one or another [Dutch] troupe.”242 The popularity of this show did not go
unnoticed. In fact, the play was so popular that multiple different organizations performed Uncle
Tom during the same kermis. In Haarlem, for example, Boas and Judels performed the play on
June 29, and the play was performed a second time on June 30 under the direction of B.J. van
235 “De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Londen, Juli 96 (Part. Corr.), Algemeen Handelsblad, July 16, 1896. 236 Olfert Johannes Praamstra, “De Nederlandse Letterkunde Als Wereldliteratuur” (Diss. Universiteit Leiden,
2008), 142. 237 Ibid. 238 “Binnenland. Zoo worden “kommunisten” gekweekt. Koe in Ned.Indië geld wordt verdiend,” Het volk: dagblad
voor de arbeiderspartij, December 31, 1927. 239 Meijer and Buikeman, Cultuur En Migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in Beweging 1900-1980, 231. 240 “Advertentie,” Dagblad van Zuidholland en ’s Gravenhage, May 4, 1853. 241 “Advertentie,” Opregte Haarlemsche Courant, June 28, 1853. 242 “Utrecht 28 Junij,” Utrechtsche provinciale en stads-courant: algemeen aderventieblad, June 29, 1853.
48
Hove.243 In addition, a review about the play in a newspaper of Utrecht stated that the “theater
has seldom been this packed, and the amount of people one had to refuse out of lack of space
were so high” that the show would be performed a few times more.244
Furthermore, according to an announcement in the Telegrafist, “everybody wanted to
amuse themselves by watching the negroes.”245 These Dutch blackface performers “interpreted
the [Uncle Tom] characters very well.”246 Indeed, the element of blackface seemed to have been
the main appeal in Bergen op Zoom in 1854: “Especially the masked performance of several
scenes from the” Tom play was met with approval.247 At least until the late 1890s, a varied
amount of troupes performed Uncle Tom in Amsterdam, Leeuwarden, Rotterdam, ‘s-
Gravenhage, Zwolle, Alkmaar, Utrecht, Haarlem, Leiden, Middelburg, and Groningen – often
during the kermis.248 Even in the smaller cities like Zwolle, the reviews were flattering: “The
audience expressed their satisfaction” of the performance by repeatedly giving a “thunderous
applause.”249
Moreover, just as the Dutch King attended the show by the Negerzangers van Amerika in
1847, he visited the theater to see the Tom play in April 1853 – during the same month the Dutch
abolition society was revived.250 Moreover, a paragraph in the Algemeen Handelsblad stated that
Uncle Tom kept attracting audiences in Amsterdam, and would “therefore be repeated several
times.”251 Indeed, an advertisement of the play in Utrecht announced that the troupe had
performed the Tom play twenty-two times in a row in Amsterdam.252 Although the attendance
remained numerous and the reactions were positive, a paragraph on April 25 announced the
twentieth, and last, performance of the play.253 Nevertheless, only two days later, a twenty-first
243 “Advertentie,” Opregte Haarlemse Courant, June 29, 1853. 244 “Uit plaatsgebrek zijn wij genoodzaakt, eenige artikelen en advertentiën te verschuiven,” Utrechtsche provinciale
en stads-courant, July 20, 1853. 245 Meijer and Buikeman, Cultuur En Migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in Beweging 1900-1980, 231. 246 “Uit plaatsgebrek zijn wij genoodzaakt, eenige artikelen en advertentiën te verschuiven,” Utrechtsche provinciale
en stads-courant, July 20, 1853. 247 “Rotterdam, 5 maart,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant, March 6, 1854. 248 Advertisements in the Rotterdamsche courant, Utrechtsche provinciale en stads-courant, Opregte Haarlemsche
Courant, Leeuwarder Courant, Dagblad van Zuidholland en ’s Gravenhage, Algemeen Handelsblad, Leydse
Courant, and Groninger courant. 249 “Ingezonden,” Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche courant: staats-, handels-, nieuws- en advertentieblad,
March 27, 1855. 250 Kuitenbrouwer, “De Nederlandse afschaffing van de slavernij in vergelijkend perspectief”, 81, and “Amsterdam
13 april,” Utrechtsche provinciale en stads-courant, April 15, 1853. 251 “Concert-en tooneelnieuws. Amsterdam Zondag 17 april,” Algemeen Handelsblad, April 18, 1853. 252 “Advertentie,” Utrechtse provinciale en stads-courant, July 22, 1853. 253 “Concert- en Tooneelnieuws. Amsterdam, Zondag 24 April,”Algemeen Handelsblad, April 25, 1853.
49
edition of Uncle Tom would be performed because of widespread public “desire.”254 Not
surprisingly, two more shows would follow shortly.255
The nation-wide popularity of the Tom plays did not mean that other comical blackface
performances did not appear in Netherlands. In 1853, for example, during a celebration of the
local militia association in Rotterdam, some members that “performed as negro singers” were
met with approval of all people that were present.256 In addition, in 1859 a reviewer of the
vaudeville performance De Mooije Nikker (“The Beautiful Nigger”) paid “homage” to Nathan
Judels – who was mentioned above.257 Judels, also known as Jules Judels, was “the most
popular” Dutch comedian “of his time.”258 One knew Judels in every city, and he was “an
indispensable appearance at every kermis.”259 According to Ko Sturkop, Judels was “familiar
with the people’s soul; exploited all the nuances of humor, joked, was sometimes jocular or
mocked all kinds of situations.”260 In The Beautiful Nigger, Judels played a buffoonish servant
which made everybody in the audience laugh.261 In another review, the author wrote that “as a
Nigger,” Judels “made his audience laugh” and received multiple cheers thanks to his “funny
recital” and his “comical performance.”262 Moreover, it were these “few simple originally Dutch
plays (…) that [attracted] the thousands and thousands of visitors to the Salon des Variétés.”263
Not surprisingly, Judels was widely known and praised for his comical performances in “low
comedy,” and “he excelled” in the genre of vaudeville.264
254 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, April 27, 1853. 255 Ibid. 256 “Advertentie,” Leeuwarder Courant, July 7, 1853. 257 Unfortunately, I was not able to find more blackface performances of Judels, besides his performance in the Tom
play. 258 DBNL, “Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek. Deel 1 · dbnl,” accessed April 11, 2013,
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/molh003nieu01_01/molh003nieu01_01_1916.php. 259 Ko Sturkop, “Nathan Judels (1815-1903): Komiek, Musicus En Ondernemer,” Misjpoge. Vereningsblad van de
Nederlandse Kring Voor Joodse Genealogie 1, no. 16 (2003): 9. 260 Ibid., 8. 261 “Rotterdamsche Kermis,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant, June 14, 1860.. 262 “Concert- en Toneelnieuws,”Algemeen Handelsblad, December 19, 1859. 263 “Nathan Judels (1814-1903),” accessed April 11, 2013, http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/afbeelding/010094007586. 264 DBNL, “Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek. Deel 1 · dbnl.”
50
An African American performer in the Netherlands
However, the overall lack of visible blackface performances in the Netherlands might mean that
blackface performances, with exception of the Tom plays, were not that popular. The significant
appearance of the African American Ira Aldridge (figure 5) supports this argument. In 1855, a
play called The Dumb Nigger Mungo, also known as The Padlock, was performed in the theater
of Rotterdam, Leiden, Amsterdam, and probably ‘s-Gravenhage.265 The play – originally an
opera – was described as a funny vaudeville performance.266 According to Strausbaugh, during
the implementation of The Padlock in the United States – which was first performed in the
United States in 1769 – “the performer in the blackface role would [often] be called upon at
some point in action to sing a “Negro” song.”267 Indeed, originally, Mungo was “a blackface
caricature of a black servant from the West Indies.”268 While the “appearance of actual Black
actors on an American stage was exceedingly rare,” it is important to note that Mungo was
played by Aldridge in 1855 in the Netherlands.269
Aldridge, “who began his professional career playing Romeo at the African Grove, the
country’s only Black theater, in lower Manhattan,” was the most famous black actor in the
United States.270 Interestingly, “in addition to being one of the few Blacks to play Othello before
the twentieth century, he did Hamlet, Richard III, Macbeth, Lear, Shylock – all in whiteface.”271
However, due to a hostile environment, Aldridge fled for England in 1824.272 As the American
historian Michael Rogin described, “blackface buffoonery varies widely in content but was
flawed fundamentally in form, for the color line was permeable in only one direction. Driving
free blacks from the stage, burnt cork substituted for African American entertainers.”273 Indeed,
according to the Rogin, the reason why “blackface took hold in the North, where blacks were
265 “Advertentie, “Leydse courant, March 23, 1855, and “ROTTERDAM den 27 februarij,” Rotterdamsche courant,
February 28, 1855. 266 Ibid. 267 Strausbaugh, Black Like You, 64. 268 Isaac Bickerstaff, The Padlock: A Comic Opera in Two Acts (Charles Wiley, 1825). 269 Lott, Love and Theft, 44 and 46, and “Advertentie,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant, March 19, 1855. 270 Strausbaugh, Black Like You, 65. 271 Ibid. 272 Ibid. 273 Rogin, Blackface, White Noise, 37.
51
Figure 5 - Ira Aldridge
Source: “National Portrait Gallery - Portrait - NPG D7311; Ira Frederick Aldridge,” accessed June 7, 2013,
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw41254/Ira-Frederick-Aldridge.
Image removed due to copyrights.
52
free, [was] not because it challenged racial subordination but because it replaced African
American performance.”274
In contrast, Aldridge was met with a mixture of fascination and admiration in the
Netherlands. For example, in a list titled “remarkable events in our days” in 1853, Aldridge was
mentioned right below the marriage announcement of the French emperor Napoleon III.275
Needless to say, the most fascinating quality of Aldridge was his race. In a Dutch article of 1853,
Aldridge is described as a Foulah, a tribe “who share more similarities with Europeans than other
negro tribes.”276 Indeed, “Foulahs are often well build, do not have flat noses, and are not that
dark of color.”277 By saying this, the article reveals the perceived difference between the black
and white races as visible in the “science of race.” Moreover, the reference to Aldridge’s race
also reveals a consciousness of the audience’s whiteness. It would not be far-fetched to argue
that the previous blackface performances in the Netherlands, including the Tom plays, made it
possible for Aldridge to perform in the Netherlands. As the American linguist W.T. Lhamon Jr.
wrote:
Taking the other’s place, willy-nilly, also means taking the other. Whether that is desired,
as I think it usually is in blackface, or despised and feared, as others have emphasized,
the incorporation means that blackness (or whiteness) comes along. It comes along like a
burr beneath a saddle.278
The blackface minstrelsy performances, and the blackface adaptation by Dutch troupes of the
Tom play, in a strange way familiarized the Dutch audiences with African Americans, paving the
way for the popular visit of Aldridge and other serious black artists. In that sense, blackface was
also liberating, since it functioned as a vehicle by which black performers could gain access to
the stage.279
Indeed, The Padlock was not the only play Aldridge performed in the Netherlands. In
Amsterdam, Rotterdam, ‘s-Gravenhage, Leiden, Haarlem, and Utrecht, Aldridge also performed
274 Ibid. 275 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, November 11, 1853. 276 “Ira Aldridge,” Surinaamsche courant en Gouvertnements advertentie blad, November 12, 1853. 277 Ibid. 278 W. T Lhamon, Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop (Cambridge, Mass.; London:
Harvard University Press, 2000), 24. 279 Walter T. Howard, “Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop by W. T. Lhamon,”
Journal of Social History 33, no. 2 (Winter 1999): 486; Rogin, Blackface, White Noise, 196.
53
in Othello.280 It should be noted that, at least in Amsterdam, Aldridge first sung some slave songs
“to meet one’s expectations,” before returning on the stage as Othello.281 This clearly reveals the
influence of The Ethiopian Serenaders. This time as well, however, the reviews mostly paid
attention to Aldridge’s origin. For example, although the audience in Amsterdam was very
positive, his play did not meet “the rules of art and taste,” and would “not be tolerated” if
embodied by “our [white] actors.”282 Indeed, Aldridge’s race is probably the reason why he
received positive reactions from the audience: “The truth was visible in his appearance, which
due to the color of his skin, the hair and posture of a real African” enabled Aldridge to achieve
“the representation of the Moor of Venice in striking manner.”283 However, the “great eruptions
of (…) anger of the natural human (…) belonging to the African [race]” were not visible in
Aldridge’s physiognomy, “because a negro face cannot do such a thing.”284 Again, this review
clearly reveals the influence of the “science of race,” while simultaneously revealing a desire to
see “real” blacks perform.
The enthusiasm, or fascination, of the Dutch public for Aldridge seemed to have no
limits. After three shows in Rotterdam, a Dutch crowd gathered in front of Aldridge’s residence
to serenade him. According to the article, Aldridge gave a speech to the gathering in which he
expressed his gratitude to the Dutch people: “He believed the tribute one paid to him [in the
Netherlands] was flattering, and he felt this deep in his heart and would never forget it.”285 He
subsequently began to talk about slavery, and acknowledged those people in the Netherlands that
were fighting hard to emancipate the slaves in their colonies. “From the bottom of his heart,”
Aldridge “called upon God to bless these attempts.”286 As Pickering explained, the “possession
of black skin was to some extent an advantage in that it could draw on the anti-slavery public
sentiment of the time.”287
Interestingly, some theater directors in Amsterdam were less enthusiastic about the
arrival of Aldridge. In an Amsterdam newspaper, an announcement enumerating the places
280 Ira Aldridge, the African Roscius, "Rochester Studies in African History and the Diaspora," v. 28 (Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press, 2007), 226. 281 Meijer and Buikeman, Cultuur En Migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in Beweging 1900-1980, 231. 282 “Amsterdam, Vrijdag 16 Februarij,”Algemeen Handelsblad, February 17, 1855. 283 Ibid. 284 Ibid. 285 “Rotterdam, 20 Februarij,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant, February 21, 1855. 286 Ibid. 287 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 76.
54
where Aldridge had performed both Othello and Shylock (the latter in ‘s-Gravenhage and
Rotterdam) before, expressed its disbelieve towards the refusal of Othello in Amsterdam: “It is
unbelievable how the Amsterdam censure refused the performance of this piece that has found
approval everywhere else.”288 Apparently, the directors of the theater – Kapper and Van Biene –
requested this censure for unknown reasons.289 However, Aldridge’s race might have been the
reason for the refusal of Aldridge: the crowd that surrounded itself in front of Aldridge’s
temporary residence in Rotterdam a few weeks earlier might have sparked fear of a more vocal
debate about abolition. After all, Aldridge was a free black man who was loved by the Dutch
public. When the censure refused Aldridge to perform in Amsterdam, an article in a Dutch
newspaper linked this scandal to Uncle Tom:
Ira Aldridge, the negro actor (…) will arrive in Amsterdam within a few days; the city
that celebrates the arts, and that received fame from all over the world, still could not
boast a temporary visit of an excellent artist, belonging to the race of humans which the
philanthropic Harriet Beecher-Stowe began to defend with so much fire.290
In the end, Aldridge did perform in Amsterdam, for a few days later an article thanked the
directors of the theater for their sacrifices to give them “a man as Ira Aldridge, such a
phoenix.”291
The fear of the abolition debate might have been well-grounded. In an interview between
a “Statesman” and Aldridge two months later, the most striking thing that Aldridge supposedly
said was that despite the “good intentions (…) nothing has been done to advance the
emancipation of the slaves” in the Dutch colonies.292 This interview eventually formed a
brochure which “every proponent of emancipation” should disseminate. The brochure (both in
English and Dutch) contained a picture of Aldridge and the “Statesman,” and a picture of a slave
that is being tortured, “which the Dutch law permits and gives rise to.”293
288 “Concert- en Tooneelnieuws. Amsterdam, Zondag 18 Maart,” Algemeen Handelsblad, March 19, 1855. 289 Since Judels and Boas traveled with them, I found out their first names: Samuel Kapper and Salomon van Biene.
However, apart from the fact that Kapper was asked to assist Aldridge to arrange a tour in France, I could not find
any more information about them. Ira Aldridge, the African Roscius, 228. 290 “Engeland,” Surinaamsche courant en Gouvernements advertentie blad, March 22, 1855. 291 Ibid. Although this article was printed in a Surinamese newspaper, the article was first published in the
Amsterdamsche Courant of January 31. 292 “Berigt,” De grondwet, May 17, 1855. 293 Ibid.
55
Needless to say, the description of the latter picture corresponds to the torture of Uncle Tom. As
Nederveen Pieterse explained, “the period in which the science [of race] took shape was also the
time when the image of the ‘noble negro’ [Uncle Tom] was at its most popular and when some
of the best ‘anti-racial’ tracts were published.”294 Moreover,
The abolition movement had an enormous cultural effect. If images of slavery from the
pro-slavery point of view were scarce, the image production of abolitionism was
abundant. The typical iconography of abolitionism displays the movement’s Christian
pathos: the recurring image is that of blacks kneeling with hands folded and eyes cast
upward.295
Although we cannot determine with certainty that Uncle Tom did help give rise to Aldridge’s
fame in the Netherlands, Aldridge became both a participant in, and ironically a subject of, the
Dutch discourse on race and emancipation. Most of all, Aldridge embodied the tension between
race and emancipation: on the one hand, Aldridge strengthened the anti-slavery feelings of Dutch
citizens, while Aldridge’s visit and participation in the abolitionist movement sparked anxiety
among other Dutch citizens. Not surprisingly, when Aldridge made two additional tours through
Europe, he did not visit the Netherlands, “in spite of the ongoing slave trade in the Dutch
colonies.”296 Ultimately, it was Aldridge’s role in the drama Othello – and not the comical The
Pedlock – for which Dutch audiences remembered him, when the popular Aldridge died in
Poland in 1867.297 Even though Aldridge was a free African American, his race remained a
significant reason for his attraction. In the next chapter, the tension of Aldridge as a free African
American will become even clearer.
“Yankee’s Bluff:” American minstrelsy in the Dutch Colonies
The fact that American blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom did not become popular in the
Dutch East Indies, and was as good as absent in the other Dutch colonies, confirms the presence
294 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 45. 295 Ibid., 58. 296 Ira Aldridge, the African Roscius, 231; Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in
Western Popular Culture., 45. 297 “UTRECHT, Dinsdag 13 Augustus,” Utrechtsch provinciaal en stedelijke dagblad: algemeen advertentie-blad,
August 13, 1867.
56
of a tension between race and emancipation in blackface performances, Uncle Tom, and
Aldridge’s visit to the Netherlands. As in the Netherlands, and in contrast to other Dutch
colonies, there was a limited black presence in the Dutch East Indies. As Blakely explained, the
“activities of the Dutch involving blacks in the East Indies was limited mainly to their
employment of several thousand African troops there in their foreign legion in the nineteenth and
early twentieth century.”298 Interestingly, Blakely had described the Batavian (now Jakarta,
Indonesia) society as “the most important Dutch colony of all,” since “it contributed much to the
general Dutch outlook about foreign peoples, especially colored peoples. Indeed, the term
‘black’ was at times used to describe some of the peoples of Indonesia.”299 Therefore, it is not
unlikely that Dutch Batavians felt threatened by blackface minstrelsy. After all, blacks and
Javanese were both perceived as equally inferior to whites.
Moreover, although the Dutch colonies were primarily trading colonies, a settled
European community developed which thought of Indonesia as a permanent home in the
nineteenth century.300 Most Dutch citizens present in the East Indies were officials or military
officers, for whom the East Indies provided interesting career prospects.301 However, despite the
presence of amongst others Germans, Frenchmen, Scots, and Englishmen, in Batavia, Asian
“slaves were always the largest part of the population of Batavia.”302 Furthermore, the Dutch
East Indies was at its height of productivity of slavery-based (that is, the Cultivation System)
plantations in the early nineteenth century.303 This dependence on slavery in general, in
combination with the relatively small presence of black slaves in Batavia, provided for an
interesting context in which the blackface minstrel troupes arrived.
Indeed, some Southern cities had banned minstrel performances when the slavery
controversy escalated in the 1850s.304 According to Kwame Nimako and Glenn Willemsen, in
the Dutch colonies “every gathering of the enslaved made the enslavers fear rebellion” during
slavery.305 Indeed,
298 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 14. 299 Ibid. 300 Ibid., 15. 301 J. R. van Diessen, Jakarta/Batavia : het centrum van het Nederlandse koloniale rijk in Azië en zijn
cultuurhistorische nalatenschap / J.R. van Diessen ; [red.: Bureau Stenfert Kroese], 1e dr (De Bilt: Cantecleer,
1989), 109. 302 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 15–6. 303 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 9. 304 Lott, Love and Theft, 38. 305 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 86.
57
Even the announcement of a tambu meeting would arouse this feeling. Tambu is
amusement, but at the same time social criticism. Though the word has different
meanings, it conveys the interrelation of dance, songs, music, religion and social
organization, which form a strong unity.306
In other words, as Blakely explained, “the songs and dances of the slaves and free blacks were a
constant reminder of both the real and the unknown causes for apprehension.”307 Moreover,
“these fears were stoked in part by reality and in part by imagination.”308 In Suriname and
surrounding areas, for example, periodic slave uprisings occurred.309 In this light, the minstrels
that were imitating a group of gathered slaves were most likely not deemed entertaining to slave
owners in the Dutch colonies. In fact, “the colonial authorities were strongly against the ‘slave
dancing’ mentioned above, which they described as shameless and pagan, and during slavery the
organization of tambu meetings were strictly prohibited.”310
Moreover, Stowe’s Uncle Tom was banned in most slave states in the United States as
subversive literature.311 Therefore, a similar hostility toward Uncle Tom in Batavia would not be
surprising. Indeed, Meer explains that both the readers of Uncle Tom and the members of
minstrel show audiences “inhabited several positions at once.”312 In the end “Uncle Tom’s
readers, like blackface audiences, could take from the novel what they wished, and that included
less benign interpretations.”313 Needless to say, the receptions of the members of the audiences
were closely connected to their position within the slavery debate. According to Lott, “the fact
that it [the minstrel show] shoved racial matters to the fore made it even less palatable to elites
than the usual run of ‘low’ comedy.”314 Moreover, this explains why “addressing the American
dilemma [slavery and race] was left to less legitimized cultural spheres [in the first place], such
as genteel women’s fiction (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) or popular entertainment forms (the minstrel
show), themselves united in Uncle Tom’s stage tenure.”315
306 Ibid. 307 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 68–70. 308 Ibid. 309 Ibid. 310 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 86. 311 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 90. 312 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 30. 313 Ibid., 44. 314 Lott, Love and Theft, 90. 315 Ibid.
58
With this background, it is not surprising that blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom were received
with mostly negative reactions. Even though the Dutch Tom play revealed a tension between
abolition of slavery and race in the Netherlands, the people in the Netherlands were not directly
threatened by the abolitionist message of Uncle Tom. However, in contrast to the Netherlands,
where the Tom play had continued the minstrel tradition the Serenaders had introduced them to,
and consequentially conquered the hearts of its audience, foreign blackface minstrelsy troupes
did arrive in Batavia from 1855 onwards. The first blackface minstrels that arrived in Batavia
were the New-York Serenaders from California. According to a short paragraph that announced
their arrival, the New-Yorker Muziek-Gezelschap, or New-York Serenaders under the lead of J.E.
Kitts was founded in 1849 and was met with great admiration in Australian and British
colonies.316 Indeed, an article in a Tasmania-based newspaper stated that “there is no comparison
between [the New York Serenaders and predecessors in the black art] (…). They dress better,
and look more like ‘niggers.’ Their style is not imitative – they are rich in melody, and possess
every claim to originality.”317
In contrast to British blackface performances in the Netherlands in 1847, this American
troupe focused mainly on plantation scenes instead of the dandy types. Not surprisingly, the
sentences that were highlighted in the playbill that was printed in the Java-Bode were le fameux
chœur rian named “The Niggers from the South!!” and the show’s finale “Ethiopian Jubilé,” also
known as “the Nigger Festival.”318 The explanation marks and bold lay-out of the above
sentences reveal the excitement advertisers hoped the “nigger” impersonations would evoke by
the Batavia residents (figure 6). Moreover, songs that were included in the show were “Happy
Are We” (which might be similar to the English version called “Happy Are We Niggars [or
Darkies] So Gay319), “Merry is the Minstrel’s Life,” and “The Dandy Broadway Swell.”320 Given
the slavery discourse, at least two other songs are important to mention as well. First of all,
“Angelina Baker” is a sad plantation song about a female slave that is sent away by her owner.
One of the verses and chorus are:
316 “Berigt aan het Muziekale publiek van Batavia,” Java-bode: nieuws, handels- en advertentieblad voor
Nederlandsch-Indie, September 22, 1855. 317 “NEW YORK SERENADERS. Of all the arts beneath the Heaven, That man bus found, or God has given, None
draws the soul so sweet away, As music’s melting, mystic lay.—HOGG.”, The Courier, March 22, 1851. 318 “Advertentie,” Java-Bode, September 22, 1855. 319 “Juba - Details: Happy Are We Darkies so Gay,” accessed March 6, 2013,
http://link.library.utoronto.ca/minstrels/songact.cfm?ID=137. 320 “Advertentie,” Java-Bode, September 22, 1855.
59
Figure 6 - Program "New-York Serenaders"
Source: “Advertentie,” Java-Bode, September 22, 1855.
60
Way down on de old plantation, dah’s where is was born,
I used to beat the whole creation hoein’in de corn;
Oh, den I work and den I sing, so happy all de day,
‘Til Angelina Baker came and stole my heart away.
Chorus: Angelina Baker, Angelina Baker’s gone,
She left me here to weep a tear and beat on de old jawbone.321
In Britain, a similar song called “Lucy Neal” became a great favorite, “which reinforced
antislavery feelings with its tale of enforced separation and heartbreak on the plantation.”322 As
the excerpt below reveals, the story is similar to the Angelina Baker song:
I was born in Alabama
My Massa name was Beale
He us’d to own a Yallar gall
Her name was Lucy Neal
She us’d to fo out wid us
Picking cotton in de field
And dere’s whar first I fell in lub
Wid my sweet Lucy Neal
(…) My massa he did sell me
Bekase he thought I’d steal
Which caus’d a separation ob
Myself and Lucy Neal
Chorus: Oh poor Lucy Neal
Oh poor Lucy Neal
If I had you by my side
How happy I should feel323
Given their dependence on the slave economy, these songs could have caused anxiety among the
Dutch presence in Batavia about emancipation. Another song that is important to mention is
“The Good Old Hut at Home,” also referred to as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”324 As the title suggests,
this song emphasized the nostalgic feeling of a slave (most likely Uncle Tom’s) towards the
321 “Old Songs: ANGELINE THE BAKER,” accessed March 6, 2013,
http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-AngelineBaker.html. 322 Scott, Sounds of the Metropolis, 147. 323 “Lucy Neal,” accessed March 6, 2013,
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3minstr/artistrespond/Mark_Turner/Turner_track5_top.html. 324 “Advertentie,” Java-Bode, September 22, 1855.
61
happy days on a previous plantation. However, unlike Angelina Baker, this song also reveals a
certain justification of slavery:
The good old hut at home, where my father he first dwelt,
Where like a possom at de feet ob mother I once knelt,
Where she taught me to hoe, and de old banjo to play,
Which in infancy delighted me, and I think of to dis day.
Chorus: My heart amid all changes, wherever I may roam,
Never can it lose its love for the old hut at home.
It was not for its ground floor the old hut was so dear,
'Twas not that Sambo or my Dinah always did come there,
But o'er the field the sugar cane and cotton plant entwin'd,
And the sweet scent of the bacca plant was waving in the wind.
But the good old hut at home is no dwelling now for me,
The home of other darkies henceforth it e'er must be,
And I oft look back upon it as to my work I go,
For the new massa I'm toiling for with shovel and with hoe.325
Although this song touches upon the cruelty of slavery in the end of the song, the song can still
be interpreted as a pro-slavery song: slaves are happy under the rights circumstances. According
to an additional announcement printed directly below the playbill, several songs of Stowe’s
Uncle Tom would be performed, “while the inimitable movements of the character most clearly
demonstrate the morals and manners of the African race in America.”326 In the previous
sentence, the dubious dynamic between Uncle Tom’s original anti-slavery message and the
image of African Americans spread by minstrel troupes becomes clear.
Regardless of the pro-slavery message one could find in blackface minstrel performances,
it is unlikely that the Dutch citizens in Batavia were not aware of the message of Uncle Tom.
Although the announcement focuses on blacks, the colonial subjects in Batavia were sometimes
referred to as “black,” as explained earlier. Therefore, even though slavers might acknowledge
that Uncle Tom was about African Americans, they did realize the danger in Uncle Tom, since it
325 “Good Old Hut At Home,” America Singing: Nineteenth-Century Song Sheets, accessed May 14, 2013,
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/amss:@field(DOCID+@lit(sb10071b)). 326 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, September 22, 1855.
62
depicted the cruelty of slavery. Not surprisingly, a letter written by some Dutch elitists in Batavia
highly criticized the arrival of the American troupe.
At first sight, the performance of the New-York Serenaders seemed popular. For
example, in an advertisement of the New-York Serenaders on September 29, the advertiser stated
that the troupe would perform one last time “at request of some families.”327 However, five days
later, an article in the same newspaper invalidated the latter statement. The statement was
described as a “yankee’s bluff.”328 According to the author, the performances of the New-York
Serenaders had disappointed the “entire Dutch public and Batavia.”329 Maybe they would have
found approval outside in the open air “or in a taverns and saloons, because that is the only place
they belong,” not in a building of the fine arts.330
The authors continued to express their feelings of disgust regarding the show. The reason
the authors had not picked up their pens earlier was because they thought that the “lack of people
that turned up” to watch the show had proven “the lack of their so-called skills,” and their
tasteless “momentous songs and silly jokes.”331 However, their “nerve” to announce a third show
claiming that some families requested it was simply unacceptable, and was perceived as a
“typical North-American, in impudence degenerated, freedom.”332 The article ends with the
statement that “the several families existed out of three gentlemen and one child.”333
The above criticism supports the notion that there was a tension visible in the Dutch Tom
play and blackface minstrelsy performances. First of all, the authors of the letter seem to be well
aware of the fact that Dutch citizens, who were opposing slavery in increasing numbers, had
appreciated the minstrel performances a few years earlier. The authors’ statement that these kind
of performances belonged in taverns or saloons is clearly directed at the popular kermis in the
Netherlands. As became clear in the first chapter, The Ethiopian Serenaders performed in the
garden of the Paleis voor Volksvlijt and saloon-like venues as the Zaal de Duizend Kolommen.334
Although this criticism against the minstrels might also reveal a process of class formation,
which will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it is more likely that the criticism
327 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, September 29, 1855. 328 “Batavia,” Java-Bode, October, 3, 1855. 329 Ibid. 330 Ibid. 331 Ibid. 332 Ibid. 333 Ibid. 334 Klöters, 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland, 34–5.
63
was directed at the American society, since the Dutch King, who belonged to the elite himself,
also visited a blackface troupe in a royal theater in the Netherlands a few years earlier.335
Indeed, the letter seems to be more directed towards the American Northern society
(“Yankees”) than to the blackface performances in general. Therefore, the anxiety of the critics
might have been rooted in the heightening slavery controversy, as was the case when the
Southern states banned minstrelsy. Indeed, the relative large focus of the New-York Serenaders
on Uncle Tom, a novel written by a Northerner, might have triggered the anti-American
sentiment visible in the letter. Not surprisingly, the hostile words about the minstrel troupes did
not cease: when two of the New-York Serenaders left Batavia a week later, the author of another
paragraph in the newspaper wrote that they “must have realized, that they, finally found the right
place to execute their so-called artificial talent.”336
However, the last words about the minstrels were still not spoken. One month after the
first review, the authors specified their earlier remarks, since the lack of specificity had made
some people – probably Americans – “mad based on pure patriotism.”337Although the authors
refused to take back what they had said, they did specify that “only one” of the New-York
Serenaders was, in fact, a North American.338 The rest of the troupe existed out of one German,
two Jews from Amsterdam, and one Englishman. “Therefore, they who were annoyed by our
article, now only have to direct one fifth of what we have said to the North-Americans, and can
point everything else that has been said, to their satisfaction, towards the other nations mention
above.”339
This second letter is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it reveals that the New
York Serenaders were not from the United States. That is to say, the only American in the troupe
most likely gave the blackface minstrel troupe an American character, yet two of the other
minstrels were Dutch Jews. The popular Judels mentioned earlier, who performed in blackface,
was also a Jew. In the beginning of his career, Judels left the troupe of Joseph Duport to open his
own Salon des Varietes, “taking almost all his Jewish colleagues with him.”340 Since the troupe
existed of two Jews from Amsterdam, it would not be surprising if they performed in blackface
335 Lott, Love and Theft, 158. 336 “Batavia,” Java-bode, October 10, 1855. 337 “Batavia,” Java-bode, November, 3, 1855. 338 Ibid. 339 Ibid. 340 Sturkop, “Nathan Judels (1815-1903): Komiek, Musicus En Ondernemer,” 5–6.
64
in Amsterdam as well. However, the fact that they visited the colonies might indicate that
minstrelsy, although visible in the Tom play, did not appeal to Dutch audiences in the
Netherlands.
Secondly, despite the mixed nationalities of the minstrels, which indicate that American
minstrelsy was not fully adapted and internalized by Dutch actors in general, the show was
promoted and perceived as American. Therefore, the playbill renders a part of the supposed
American culture. This is closely related to the last remark about the letter. Even though the
troupe existed of multiple nationalities, the authors of the letters still directed their criticism
towards the United States. Clearly, the attack against the show must have had an underlying anti-
American feeling. Although Meer describes a similar “anti-American patriotism of many British
[Tom play] productions,” she does not mention whether similar feelings where present in regular
British blackface minstrel troupes.341 Yet, it became clear in the first chapter that the British
troupes generally let go of the American elements. Nevertheless, the rejection of American
popular forms of culture did reveal a growing consciousness among the Dutch colonial elite
about the likelihood of a similar emerging discourse on Javanese, which would emerge with the
publication of Max Havelaar (1860) and the foundation of the Society for the Benefit of the
Javanese (1866).
341 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 142.
65
3 – Uncle Tom: from Surinamese to Javanese
Despite the tension between race and emancipation that was clearly visible in the performances
in the Dutch society, most Dutch citizens were still proponents of emancipation of the slaves. In
contrast, the reactions on the same performances in Batavia revealed that the Dutch citizens in
the East Indies were aware that emancipation would alter their society. This chapter will reveal
that a similar feeling became evident in the Netherlands after the abolition of slavery. The
continuing tension between race and emancipation would shift toward racial domination in the
decades after the legal abolition of slavery.
The Memory of Slavery
A decade after the publication of the Dutch translation of Uncle Tom, slavery was legally
abolished in the Dutch colonies. In that same year, President Abraham Lincoln emancipated the
slaves in the United States. After slavery, however, both the Tom play and Stowe’s novel did not
decline in popularity. Between the first edition in 1853 and 1900, twelve Dutch editions of Uncle
Tom were published, one new translation, and four translated children’s versions.342 The editions
after the abolition of slavery differed from the previous one. In the 1868 edition, for example, six
instead of two illustrations with the same themes of reconciliation and conflict were chosen to
illustrate the novel.343 Although the illustrations of this edition still mainly focused on the same
themes, the three editions between 1868 and 1879 revealed a different mindset about slavery
altogether. The cruel scenes of torture in the last part of the book were absent, and the illustration
of the slave auction was hardly recognizable. In other words, “the iconography of slavery in the
three editions between 1868 and 1879 were rather meek.”344 This suggests that after the abolition
of slavery, the idea of slavery began to be depicted more romantically. A similar trend can be
seen in the United States after the Civil War.
As David Blight explains in Race and Reunion: The Civil War in Memory (2001), three
visions of the Civil War memory competed in the late nineteenth century: a reconciliationist
342 Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.” 343 Ibid. 344 Ibid.
66
vision, an emancipationist vision, and a white supremacist vision. The first vision “celebrated the
soldierly devotion of Union and Confederate fighters while avoiding discussion of the causes and
motives of the war.”345 The discussion about slavery and race that divided the nation and that
was so visible before and during the Civil War had disappeared to the background. In addition,
the free blacks were a “problem” of the whole nation. In contrast, the second vision “saw the war
as a struggle to reinvent the republic on the basis of black citizenship and equality.”346 This
vision focused on the causes and motives of the war: slavery. The last vision “minimized
slavery’s role as a war issue and asserted a moral defense of the antebellum southern social
order.”347 The reconciliationist vision, in which the two proponents in the war came together
over African Americans, “quickly established its dominance.”348 More importantly, “over time,
elements of the white supremacist view were integrated into the reconciliationist vision, as issues
of slavery and race were banished from public discussion of the war.”349 That is to say, racial
superiority and inferiority were deemed self-evident. Immediately after the War, for example,
segregation made especially “the Northern Negro (…) painfully aware that he lived in a society
dedicated to the doctrine of white supremacy and Negro inferiority.”350
Nevertheless, the Netherlands did not wage a war over slavery. Instead, just as their
knowledge of slavery in general, the Dutch memory of slavery came mostly from art (including
exhibitions and museums) and literature.351 Therefore, the emancipation debate that preceded the
abolition of slavery, visible in the Dutch Tom play, continued as a more vocal public debate after
slavery. However, this debate differed from the one before the legal abolition of slavery, in that
the legal abolition of slavery had transformed the former enslaved into colonial subjects.352 In
other words, slavery had been replaced by another form of domination. Indeed, this domination,
based on a white supremacist view, required a justification from the mother country. This
domination required white Dutch citizens to reconcile over race.
345 Joel M. Sipress, “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory by David W. Blight,” The Wisconsin
Magazine of History 85, no. 4 (Summer 2002): 57. 346 Ibid. 347 Ibid. 348 Ibid. 349 Ibid. 350 Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, 18. 351 Blakely, Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern Society., 278; Nimako and
Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 150. 352 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 150.
67
Certainly, as the many added dialogues between Bengali and Philemon have revealed, the Dutch
Tom play mostly resembled the Dutch discourse on race. In fact, the Dutch Tom play seemed to
be less about the question whether the Netherlands should abolish slavery, and more about the
question what they should do with the freedmen after slavery had been abolished. As revealed in
the previous chapters, emancipation had been talked about since the early 1840s. For example, in
1844, J.C. Baud, the former minister of the colonies, “informed King Willem II that Suriname
could only be kept as a colony if the enslaved were emancipated.”353 The latter statement reveals
that the Dutch government did already envision further colonization after slavery. Not
surprisingly, the question about what to do with freedmen was part of the Dutch debate about
slavery for decades. In this debate, one argued strongly in favor “of governmental authoritative
measures over freedmen.”354 As Nimako and Willemsen explained:
Within this context, it [the Baud Committee] was expressing clear opinions and beliefs
about civilization and barbarism, such as the laziness of ‘the Negro,’ his backwardness,
and his inevitable failure as a free citizen. These opinions, points of view and beliefs
would completely dominate the debate in the Dutch Parliament regarding the legal
abolition of slavery.355
These “characteristics of the Negro” were also part of the Tom play, which indicates that the Tom
play endorsed the Dutch colonization efforts.
In the second scene of the play, for example, St. Clare was not surprised that George had
built a machine. After all, “the Negro is a machine, which would do anything to refrain from
work.”356 In other words, blacks were lazy. In the end, these opinions and beliefs about blacks
resulted in a system to control freed slaves similar to the sharecropping system in the United
States.357 As seen earlier, a similar system (the Cultivation System) was already present in the
353 Ibid., 90. 354 Ibid., 92. 355 Ibid. 356 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom.Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 6. 357 After the abolition of slavery, “planters sought to preserve a black labor force. Freedmen, they insisted, would
work only under coercion, and not at all if the possibility of landownership arose. As soon as the war ended, the
white South took steps to make sure that black labor would remain available on plantations.” Sharecropping was one
of these steps: “Under the sharecropping system, landowners subdivided large plantations into farms of thirty to fifty
acres, which they rented to freedmen under annual leases for a share of the crop, usually half. (…) [Planters]
retained power over tenants, because annual leases did not have to be renewed; they could expel undesirable tenants
at the end of the year.” Boyer, The Enduring Vision, 485.
68
Dutch West Indies, which required the colonial subjects to use a part of their land to grow crops
for the Dutch colonial government. This system was only abolished in 1870.358 Similarly, as
explained earlier, the Emancipation Law forced freed slaves in Suriname to work on the same
plantation for ten years: “The Dutch government believed that a period of ten years would be
necessary to accustom the freedmen to wage work.”359 Or as Nimako and Willemsen described
it; the Dutch abolished slavery without emancipation.360
In line with the opinions and beliefs about civilization and barbarism, the Dutch
government aimed to educate their free slaves. Indeed, directly after the abolition of slavery, the
Dutch Society to Promote the Abolition of Slavery became the Society for the Advancement of
Religious Education among the slaves and other pagan population in the Colony of Suriname.361
This faith in education as regards to civilization was already visible when Aldridge visited the
Netherlands. In 1853, the end of an article about Aldridge reinforced the power of education:
“The appearance of Ira Aldridge on stage (…) proves that the negro race share the genes of talent
(…) and a good education can bring him to the same level of civilization, as their less dark
colored brothers.”362
Not surprisingly, not everyone agreed. An article about Aldridge in 1854 revealed that
some people believed strongly in the science of race: Aldridge was just a rare example of “what
the despised African race can be.”363 Yet the authors all agreed that, although he might be an
exception, Aldridge was civilized. Therefore, an article in 1855 stated that Aldridge’s
performance “disproved the assertion held in the slave states of North-America” that black
“people are less able to develop.”364 Indeed, it was deemed possible to civilize the Surinamese,
which was proved by looking at the “negro race” in the “American colonies.”365 The latter
statements reveal that the African American race was both perceived as distinct from the blacks
on Suriname, yet also similar.
358 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, 27. 359 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 115. 360 Ibid., chap. 4. 361 Kuitenbrouwer, “De Nederlandse Afschaffing van de Slavernij in Vergelijkend Perspectief,” 89. 362 “Ira Aldridge,” Surinaamsche courant en Gouvertnements advertentie blad, November 12, 1853. 363 “Binnenland,” De grondwet, February 1, 1854. 364 “Assen,” 17 Februarij,” Provinciale Drentsche en Asser courant, February 21, 1855. 365 Taalman Kip, “Nadere Beschouwing over Het Arbeiders Vraagstuk in de Kolonie Suriname,” De Economist 27,
no. 2 (1878): 870.
69
In a political newspaper, Aldridge’s influence became visible in an article starting with the
sentence: “The session of the House of Representatives of yesterday was in some ways
remarkable.”366 The representatives discussed the possibilities of a gradual improvement for
slaves, that is, the education of the youth “in which the germs for the enjoyment of freedom
should be planted,” a “judgment” made by Aldridge.367 This latter article not only reveals the
parliamentary debate about slavery discussed earlier, it likewise reveals that Aldridge, as an
African American, was taken seriously by the Dutch parliamentarians. After all, Aldridge was
the living example of a successful emancipation process.
The same emancipation debate shines through in the Tom play. Indeed, in the beginning
of the play, Tom himself reasons why he rather remains a slave:
[In responds to the notion of getting his freedom] And then I would have to worry for the
future; fear illness within my family or being not able to provide for them. When
someone had developed my understanding when I was younger, when someone had
provided me with the knowledge of childrearing, then I would have said: ‘Free me!’ But I
am only a simple machine, at most able to earn my own bread. Blessed is the Master that
provides for my children, something I would never be able to do.368
Not only does Tom comes forth as a contented slave, a clear need for education – starting as
early as possible – can be drawn from Tom’s short speech. Without education blacks are like
non-educated children, and they will not be able to take care of themselves once freed.
As revealed in Uncle Tom, education of freedmen was inseparable of religion. Stowe
believed that exactly these characteristics – “their gentleness, their lowly docility of heart, their
aptitude to repose on a superior mind and rest on a higher power, their childlike simplicity of
affection, and facility of forgiveness” – would make blacks perfect Christians.369 It should be
noted that Stowe did not advocate citizenship for free blacks. If any, Stowe advocated
colonization after emancipation.370 In the American context colonization meant the removal from
African American from the United States. Indeed, the free blacks were deemed better off back in
366 “De zitting der Tweede Kamer van gister was in sommige opzigten niet onopmerkelijk,” De Constitutioneel:
nieuwe ’s-Gravenhaagsche courant, December 14, 1855. 367 Ibid. 368 Dumanoir, De Negerhut van Oom Tom.Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery, Naar Het Fransch
Door Cornelissen En Beems., 27. 369 George M Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind; the Debate on Afro-American Character and
Destiny, 1817-1914 (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 111. 370 Ibid., 115.
70
Africa: “Receive [free blacks] to the education advantages of Christian republican society and
schools, until they have attained to somewhat of a moral and intellectual maturity, and then assist
them in their passage to those shores [in Africa], where they may put into practice the lessons
they have learned in America.”371 Similarly, the Dutch government believed that “the black man
had to be prepared for his freedom and gradually taught what life in a ‘civilized’ society
meant.”372
Indeed, in the Dutch Tom play, the reasoning behind the system of control, which was
implemented after the abolition of slavery, was described in terms in line with the “science of
race.” Senator Bird, who had conflicted feelings toward slavery, explained to his wife why
abolition was not something that would happen in the near future:
I say, and I will keep my ground against all your abolitionists; the Negro slave is like a
child, whose whole life is nothing else than childhood under the guardianship of the
Master. I say, that, if one did not prepare him for freedom, and one should probably need
a century to complete this, that he will miserably be making use of a freedom he does not
understand. The devil, if you want to make free humans out of them, start with making
them human!373
This belief that blacks are not truly human was also visible in the scene with Bengali and the
monkey described in the previous chapter. As the content of the Tom play already indicated, the
tension between race and emancipation remained a part of the discourse after the abolition of
slavery. Indeed, the discourse about the Dutch East Indies would easily fit into the Tom play.
What about the Javanese?
The colonial question had become more important in the 1850s, and began to dominate politics
during the 1860s.374 In 1854, for example, the small elitist Indische Genootschap [Indian
Society] was founded in the Netherlands. Their aim was to research the truths about the colonial
situation in the Dutch East Indies.375 After the publication of Max Havelaar in 1860, the Society
371 Ibid. 372 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 99. 373 Ibid., 48, Italics in original text. 374 Janse, “De afschaffers,” 179. 375 Ibid., 181.
71
increased in membership. Slowly, the Dutch East Indies became a larger part of the anti-slavery
debate. As mentioned earlier, the Cultivation System was still up and running after the legal
abolition of slavery. One side effect of the profitable Cultivation System was that the Dutch state
had financed the abolition of slavery in its colonies with the surplus from the exploitation of
Java, Indonesia.376 The Dutch East Indies were not forgotten. More than ever, the emancipation
discourse threatened the future of the Batavian society. Not surprisingly, the minstrel
performances in Batavia after the abolishment of slavery still did not find general approval of the
Dutch citizens there.
Although the opinion about the aesthetics of the minstrel performances in Batavia did not
seem to change right after the abolishment of slavery in 1863, the show did invoke laughter. One
year after the abolition of slavery in the Dutch colonies, and nine years after the negative review
of the New-York Serenaders, an advertisement announced that the original Christy’s Minstrels –
highly appreciated by the British Queen Victoria and Emperor of France – would give four
shows in Batavia.377 In contrast to the New-York Serenaders, the Christy’s Minstrels contained
no Americans. As Pickering mentions, “a veritable epidemic of Christy minstrel” emerged in
Britain “as people cashed in on the name.”378 Indeed, the so-called “Brown’s (Joe) Christy’s”
under the management of J.W. Smith sailed away from Britain on September 27, 1863.379
According to the announcement, the show would contain the “comical” scenes referred to
as “Traits of American Dandy Negroes,” and “Characteristics of the plantation Negroes.”380 A
review about the first show in the same newspaper a few weeks later was fairly positive.
Although the happy songs, farcical movements and the eccentric sounds caused laughter by even
the most tense persons, the content of most of the parts, and the exaggerated performances were
not considered to be either art or tasteful.381 Yet numerous people went to see the minstrels.382
Unfortunately, the review did not reveal to what part of the performance the author was referring
to when he wrote that the “content of the most parts” were neither art nor tasteful.
376 Nimako and Willemsen, The Dutch Atlantic, 95. 377 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, March 26, 1864. 378 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 15. 379 William L. Slout, Burnt Cork and Tambourines: A Source Book of Negro Minstrelsy (Wildside Press LLC,
2007), 36. 380 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, March 26, 1864. 381 “De Christy’s Minstrels,” Java-bode, April 16, 1864. 382 Ibid.
72
In comparison to the New-York Serenaders nine years earlier, the Christy’s Minstrel troupe
altered the program of the show four days after the review. Since the program of the show was
not mentioned in earlier newspapers, it is not clear what had changed. However, the detailed
program revealed that the choir would sing “The Coon Hunters,” and W.P Collins and Joe
Brown (hence the “Brown’s Christy’s”) were both described as comedians and one of them
played the “Foolish Villain.”383 A few days later, “The Family Crow” would also be a part of the
show.384 With the exception of the “Plantation Song and Dance” performed by Brown, few act
seemed to have been directly related to slavery.385 This changing program substantiate the notion
that the remarks against the aesthetics of the performance might have been directed against the
growing Dutch discourse about the harsh treatment of colonial subjects – just as the remarks
about the New-York Serenaders were fuelled by the Dutch discourse on slavery.
The change in repertoire seemed to have effect. On the day of the final show, a short
paragraph in the newspaper urged people who did not yet see the minstrels perform to attend a
show.386 We can deduce from this last paragraph that the minstrels, eventually, were fairly
successful in Batavia. Indeed, a short paragraph in the Rotterdamsche courant stated that a lot of
people visited the “very funny show.”387 However, as had been the case with the New-York
Serenaders, the advertisements and short positive reviews have to be questioned. In Soerabaya
(now Surabaya, East Java), for example, the minstrel performances were not that popular.
Reviewers wrote that they were “very surprised that” few people of Soerabaya showed up “to
appreciate these artists.”388 After all, the immense applause after every song would “suggest that
their reputation would be established to such an extent, that the room would be filled more after
every show.”389 However, “the opposite” was true.390
Moreover, the reviewer could not believe that the audience would miss the funny purpose
of Collins and Brown’s acts.391 This would in fact be contradictory, since British songwriters like
Harry Hunter “began writing [minstrel] songs partly because he felt that most of the minstrel
383 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, April 20, 1864. 384 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, April 27, 1864. 385 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, April 20, 1864. 386 “Nederlandsch-Indie. Batavia,” Java-bode, April 27, 1864. 387 “Kolonien. Batavia 15 April. (Per overland mail),” Rotterdamsche courant, May 30, 1864. 388 “Christy’s Minstrels,” Java-bode, June 11, 1864. 389 Ibid. 390 Ibid. 391 Ibid.
73
material imported from North America was lacking in appeal – the comic songs in particular
seemed to him profoundly unfunny.”392 However, despite the “refined” British humor, the Dutch
citizens on Batavia still tried to distance themselves from the blackface acts, which they
perceived as threatening.
Three years later, the Christy’s Minstrel performed in Samarang (now Semarang, Java).
Although the author could not give an opinion about the show based on his own experience, he
did read the “laudatory” reviews in Batavian newspapers. Therefore, the author would
recommend a visit – “especially in these times of mud and all kinds of miseries.”393 It is unclear
to what “miseries” the author refers to, yet it would not be surprising if the hardship was related
to the intensified political debate about the Dutch East Indies in the Netherlands between 1866
and 1868.394
In 1866, the Maatschappij tot Nut van den Javaan [Society for the Benefit of the
Javanese] was founded in protest against the Cultivation System. According to Janse, this
Society was important “because of its influence on Dutch public opinion regarding the
Cultivation System.”395 In the Society’s consuetudinary, the authors explicitly stated that the
Society did not aim to change the customs and moral of the Javanese. Instead, the Society aimed
to “elevate the moral dignity of the Dutch society.”396 However, the members of the Society did
believe that education of the Javanese would teach “the Javanese to think” and subsequently help
stop their exploitation.397 In other words, the Society attacked the Dutch colonial rule in the East
Indies, while simultaneously emphasizing a racial hierarchy.
Given the criticism toward the colonial regime in the Netherlands, it would not be
surprising if the Dutch citizens in the East Indies aimed to distance themselves from the alleged
injustices. One way of doing this is to elevate oneself above popular culture in the Netherlands.
In this light, it was understandable that the reviewer’s words of recommendation did not bear
fruit. Four days after the call for audiences, a short article mentions that the minstrels did not find
392 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 48. 393 “De Christy’s Minstrels,” De locomotief: Samarangsch handels- en advertentie-blad, November 11, 1867. 394 Janse, “De afschaffers,” 192. 395 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 68. 396 Wat wil de Maatschappij: Tot nut van den Javaan? (Arnhem: DAThieme, 1867). 397 Janse, “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-
1880,” 67.
74
the amount of support they had hoped to find in “a place like Samarang.”398 Therefore, and
because of the previous contradictory reviews, we should doubt the truth of the paragraph that
was published in the same newspaper a week later. According to this piece, the Christy’s
Minstrels were going to perform one more time “at the request of some townspeople.”399 Indeed,
there were apparently cases of altercations. A week after their final performance, a sentence in
the same newspaper suggests that the minstrels were not welcome: “As if it wasn’t more than
enough that the Soer. Ct. called Mr. Gee of the Christy’s Minstrels a Buck” – whatever that
means.400
Nevertheless, the negative reviews did not prevent the Christy’s Minstrels from returning
to Batavia in 1872. At this point, the minstrels were received as the best part of the performance:
when “one noticed the nine negronized persons, who in color, clothes, manner of sitting, singing,
playing and gestures could not be distinguished from the persons they were imitating, the whole
audience burst into Homeric-laughter over and over again.”401 Moreover, a footnote next to
“Christy’s Minstrels” proudly explained that they were “named after E.P. Christy, who in 1842,
in Buffalo in the United States, began to travel with these kinds of performances and received a
fortune in a short amount of time.”402 Why did one suddenly emphasize the “Americanness” of
the performance? What had happened during the eight years between the performances of the
Christy’s Minstrels?
One important change was the abolishment of the Cultivation System. The Agriculture
Act of 1870 “opened the way to liberal colonial policies and free entrepreneurship in the Dutch
East Indies.”403 Whereas the Cultivation System relied largely on a form of indirect rule – the
local rulers retained as much as possible of their presumed influence – the increasing Dutch
administration and private enterprise on Java resulted in colonial expansion.404 The most
important example of this expansion was the war the Dutch waged against Aceh (now Sumatra,
Indonesia) between 1873 and 1914. The Aceh War “unofficially ended the Dutch policy of
398 “De Christy’s Minstrels,” De locomotief, November 15, 1867. 399 “De Christy’s Minstrels,” De locomotief, November 22, 1867. 400 Eventually, a “buck” became to be described as “a large Black man who is proud, sometimes menacing, and
always interested in White women.” Although this description does not fit the requirements for a white blackface
minstrel, it does indicate that “buck” was used as a racial insult.“Blackface! - The History of Racist Blackface
Stereotypes.” And “Gemengde Indische Berigten,” De locomotief, December 2, 1867, 142. 401 “Article,” Java-bode, May 11, 1872. 402 Ibid. 403 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, 27. 404 Ibid., 27–32.
75
“abstraction” from the colony’s internal affairs.”405 It has to be noted that the Aceh War fits the
overall trend of imperialism. As Bloembergen described:
Between about 1870 and 1914 the European powers were embroiled in a competitive
struggle for the political and economic control of overseas territory, primarily in Africa
and Asia. By means of conflicts, conquests, and diplomacy they carved up these
territories, imposing artificial borders in cavalier disregard for indigenous state and tribal
entities.406
Needless to say, imperialism went hand in hand with a sense of racial superiority, since “imperial
expansion forced the leaders of the states to consider the substance of the nationality they
claimed to embody.”407 Therefore, it was not surprising that blackface minstrelsy became more
popular in Batavia during the 1870s.
Moreover, the Dutch colonial citizens took a more suitable message from the
performances. This becomes clear from the Christy’s Minstrel performance in 1874. A review
about this performance mentioned that the audience laughed a lot, while the two actors (referred
to as “Box and Cox,” popular one-act minstrel play) had an unusual challenging difficulty to
overcome, since a part of the audience had troubles understanding the “intrigue” in a foreign
language.408 Unfortunately, we cannot deduce from the review who visited the show. Did the
sudden popularity of the blackface minstrel troupes have something to do with the economic
upheaval in Batavia after 1870?
After the abolition of the Cultivation System in 1870, an increasing number of Dutch
citizens permanently settled in Batavia to build up a plantation, trade or an industry.409
Moreover, whereas it used to be predominantly Dutch men that moved to the Dutch East Indies,
women and families began to join after 1870. In this light, members of the audience might have
come from the Netherlands, which would explain why the audience did not understand the
minstrels. Moreover, the possible Dutch audience might have appreciated the blackface acts
because they were familiar with blackface performances. Either way, the Christy’s Minstrels
were suddenly a success. Indeed, the positive impression of the minstrels in Batavia in 1872 still
405 Ibid., 32. 406 Ibid., 19. 407 C. A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons, The Blackwell
History of the World (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2004), 228. 408 Ibid. 409 Diessen, Jakarta/Batavia, 109.
76
lingered on two years later, when a reviewer wrote that the show of the Christy’s Minstrels was
met with a positive impression, “as usual.”410
Nevertheless, as emphasized before, the exterior of the minstrel performances were as
important as the actual spoken words – if not more important. Given the circumstances of the
Aceh War, words might not have been necessary. Indeed, the authors of the announcement for
the Christy’s Minstrels wished “the gentlemen the best of luck,” considering “their attempt to
provide the audience with some entertainment during these times of sorrow.”411 The
entertainment consisted of “Atjeh’s Kraton Marsch,” which later sold as “Negermarsch,” and
was composed by the Dutch pianist W.J.J.M. Jansen of the Christy’s Minstrels.412 This March
was dedicated to the Governor General of the Dutch East Indies, James Loudon (figure 7).
Governor General Loudon was a strong proponent of the Aceh War.413 The Dutch nationality of
Jansen, of course, makes us question the nationalities of the Christy’s Minstrels of 1874.
However, as described earlier, we do know with certainty that there were English minstrels in the
Christy’s troupe.414
In addition, it is hard to determine whether the “negro march” was comical in nature
since it became a standard militia song.415 On the one hand, it seems unlikely that the significant
amount of African soldiers in the Dutch colonial army would be mocked given their importance
in the War.416 On the other hand, it would not be surprising if blackface performances were a
means to make white soldier feel racial superior to the black soldier – as Lott had described in
the case of white American laborers. Regardless of the nature of the song, when the composer of
the March had died in 1874, a short paragraph honoring Jansen emphasized his comical
character: “Too bad that the still young man (…) died recently. However, upon hearing the
Atjeh-Kraton Marsch one will think about the cheerful, eupeptic and kindhearted composer.”417
410 “Nederlandsch-Indië. BATAVIA, 29 JANUARI,” Java-bode, January 29, 1874. 411 “Nederlandsch-Indië, BATAVIA, 20 JANUARI. Telegram,” Java-Bode, January 20, 1874. 412 “Nederlandsch-Indië. BATAVIA, 4 FEBRUARU,” Java-Bode, February 4, 1874. 413 Abraham Jean Arnaud Gerlach, Neerlands Heldenfeiten in Oost-Indië. Bewerkt Naar Les Faster Militaires Des
Indes Orientales van A.J.A. Gerlach., vol. III (Gebr. Belinfante and J. Ijkema, 1876), 80. 414 “Nederlandsch-Indië, BATAVIA, 20 JANUARI. Telegram,” Java-Bode, January 20, 1874. 415 “Program der Stadmuziek Militaire Societeit Concordia.,” Java-Bode, April 12, 1879. 416 Ineke van Kessel, Zwarte Hollanders: Afrikaanse soldaten in Nederlands-Indië (Amsterdam: KIT Publishers,
2005), chap. 8. 417 “Nederlandsch-Indie. BATAVIA, 11 DECEMBER.” Java-Bode, December 11, 1874.
77
Figure 7 - Cover of the Atjeh's Kraton Marsch
Source: “Atlas Van Stolk - Collectie: Atjeh’s Kraton Marsch,” accessed June 9, 2013,
http://collectie.atlasvanstolk.nl/collectie/data_nl.asp?display=1&q0=81557&search=Record.
78
Additionally, the Christy’s Minstrels performed for the family members of fallen soldiers in
Aceh.418 Probably linked to this war, the revenue of a performance of Christy’s Minstrels in
1876, with burlesque negro acts, went to the Red Cross organization.419 It is not strange that the
Christy’s Minstrels adapted their show to the Aceh war. During the Civil War in the United
states, “the war completely dominated the minstrel show, even though the inane laughter,
slapstick comedy, and sentimental romance of the earlier years remained standard minstrel
features.”420 Indeed, both the “sentimental and comical songs of the negro troupe” were met with
applause in Batavia.421 In 1882, a review stated that the comedy building had never been that
crowded as with the performance of the “true Christy’s minstrels,” with two jetty “Nelly’s.”422 In
1883, an advertisement states that the Christy’s Minstrels show was a “great success:” everyone
was “highly delighted,” there were “roars of applause,” and “side splitting laughter.”423 Clearly,
the Aceh War, or the growing presence of Dutch citizens from the Netherlands, had altered one’s
reception of minstrelsy in Batavia. Did the altered reception also have something to do with the
need to feel racial superior during the Aceh War?
Blackface minstrels would keep returning to the Dutch East Indies in the coming years.
In 1891, for instance, the British Harry Stanley’s comedy and opera company performed their
Grand Christy’s Minstrel show in Batavia for the first time, which resulted in “packed rooms”
and was a “great success.”424 A week later, an advertisement announced that the Christy Minstrel
show would be repeated “due to general request.”425 In 1895, Williamson and Maher’s Groote
Chicago Minstrel Company performed with their Chicago “Negro” Orchestra at Java.426 The
advertisement tried to lure the audience with slogans like “Come and see! And you will be
amused.”427 Another announcement simply stated that the Groote Chicago Minstrel Company
418 “Samarang. Maanstand gedurende de maand April,” De locomotief, April 4, 1974. 419 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, March 4, 1876. 420 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 105. 421 “Nederlandsch-Indië. Batavia, 9 maart,” Java-bode, March 9, 1876. 422 “Nederlandsch-Indië. Soerabaia, 15 december,” Soerabaijasch handelsblad, December 18, 1882. 423 “Advertentie,” Soerabajisch handelsblad,, August 7, 1883. 424 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, March 21, 1981. 425 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, March 28, 1891. 426 “Nederlandsch-Indië. BATAVIA, 16 AUGUSTUS,” Java-bode, August 17, 1895. Unfortunately, I was not able
to trace the namens of these men nor the troupe. 427 “Advertentie.” Java-bode, August 17, 1895.
79
existed of comedians, negroes, singers, and dancers.428 Although the number of performances
had decreased, the minstrels that occasionally performed were met with approval.
Continuation of tension with an element of class
After years of English “American” minstrel troupes and Dutch blackface performers, the
Americans Henry Jarrett and Harry Palmer visited the Netherlands with the “World’s famous
American Negro troupe” in 1880.429 Back in 1878, the American revival of Uncle Tom gave
Palmer an idea: “It occurred to him that slave life, as it existed in the South in the ante-war days,
had never been truthfully depicted in Europe, and he resolved to produce ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’
across the water with genuine southern darkies in the cast.”430 Therefore, under the lead of the
American W.H. Morton, Jarrett and Palmer and “32 free slaves, Negroes, etc.” gave a guest
performance at the New Theater of Van Lier in Amsterdam from April 11 until April 20.431 The
performance would end with a “great plantation festivity.”432 Since the Ethiopian Serenaders in
the late 1840s mainly focused on the dandy figure, the focus on the “plantation” might have been
new for most people in the audience.
It is not clear whether the American troupe performed the Dutch version of the Tom play.
Indeed, Jarrett and Palmer hired George Fawcett Rowe to write the script, which resembled the
script of Aiken.433 In contrast to the Dutch version, and similar to the Aiken version, Eva and
Tom both die.434 Moreover, Topsy takes over the comical role of Bengali and Philemon. Indeed,
the famous scene between Topsy and Ophelia described earlier was included in Rowe’s version.
The performance was well-visited, despite the fact that they probably performed a different
version of the play. For instance, an earlier advertisement stated that they would perform until
the eighteenth; however, there were two extra performances, which might indicate its success.435
428 “Nederlandsch-Indië. BATAVIA, 16 AUGUSTUS,” Java-bode, August 17, 1895. 429 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, April 11, 1880. 430 “Jarrett and Palmer’s Uncle Tom,” accessed May 15, 2013,
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/rowehp.html. 431 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, April 11, 1880. 432 Ibid. 433 “Jarrett and Palmer’s Uncle Tom.” 434 “Rowe’s Uncle Tom,” accessed May 15, 2013, http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/osplgpraVt.html. 435 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, April 13, 1880.
80
In addition, an article in the same newspaper predicted the success of Jarrett and Palmer’s visit,
since the Amsterdam public had a favorable memory “of the only negro-actor that has ever
performed here,” namely Aldridge.436
The reference to Aldridge is interesting for several reasons. First of all, it reveals that
Aldridge’s visit twenty-five years ago had left a deep impression on the inhabitants of
Amsterdam. Indeed, Aldridge’s presence and performance might have been one of the reasons
for the few blackface minstrel shows in the Netherlands since the performances of The Ethiopian
Serenaders between 1847 and 1849. The few international minstrel troupes that were announced
in newspapers were received with a mixture of approval and rejection. For example, in a letter to
the editor about the kermis in Amsterdam, a critic commented on the ridiculous amount of cork
the Zevenstar Minstrels from London used. In July and August of 1868, these English minstrels
performed in a small park in Amsterdam called Tuin Welgelegen. The author blamed the rising
cork prices in Amsterdam during the summer of 1868 on one man who engaged a group of negro
singers, also known as “English minstrels.”437 Needless to say, the cork was used to prepare the
minstrels for the show. Not only does the author comments on the “ridiculous amount of cork”
that was used, which indicate that the minstrels used a lot to blacken their faces, he also reveals
that the performances did not represent real blacks: “Although negroes, one had to admit, that
they sung really bad, yet instead made a pagan noise. Luckily, Amsterdam got rid of them
again.”438
Interestingly, the “although Negroes” part seems to suggest that “real” blacks could
represent themselves better. Therefore, the reviewer must have had a black performer in his
mind. It seemed that the Dutch citizens had gained a more realistic image of black in the period
between the first minstrel performances in 1847 and the 1860s. A reviewer in 1862 already
commented on the unrealistic exterior of blackface performers. In a review about a Tom play, the
reviewer complained that the lips of “the negro staff” were “too red and their hands were too
black.”439 This as well reveals that the Dutch audience had a certain image of African Americans
in their minds. Did this mean that direct contact with black people had made blackface minstrel
unrealistic? Was this desire to depict African Americans realistically stimulated by the image
436 “Kunstnieuws,” Algemeen Handelsblad, March 9, 1880. 437 “Brieven uit de Hoofdstad,” Utrechtsch provinciaal en stedelijk dagblad, September 7, 1868. 438 Ibid. 439 “Kunstnieuws,” Nieuw-Amsterdamsch handelsblad- en effectenblad, March 3, 1862.
81
Aldridge and Uncle Tom had created of African Americans? After all, an urge for “real” black
performances was already visible in the reviews about Aldridge’s performances. Although the
impact of Aldridge and Uncle Tom on Dutch citizens is impossible to measure, it did take more
than twenty years for international blackface troupes to return to the Netherlands. The sympathy
Uncle Tom evoked, and the blackface performances in the Tom plays, might have caused the
disinterest toward minstrel troupes.
However, despite the expressed joy of the author over the leaving minstrels, an
advertisement announced the performance by the “famous English Star Minstrels” at a different
location in Amsterdam four days later.440 This performance in the Keizerskroon – “furnished as a
Café Chantant during the kermis” – was well reviewed. According to a paragraph in the
Algemeen Handelsblad, the group was already so well-known in Amsterdam, that “we do not
need to praise them extensively,” and the author could “highly recommend a visit.”441 Indeed,
later advertisements for the Star Minstrels stated that their “negro-entertainment was
unsurpassed” and their stay was extended due to “huge success.”442 Indeed, the Star Minstrels
still performed in Amsterdam in October. 443 Noteworthy is the fact that the performance of the
blackface minstrels was described as “unsurpassed,” which indicates that other “negro-
entertainment” performances were present in the public memory.
Needless to say, there is a contradiction visible between the review that claimed the
popularity of the minstrels and the one that denounced their visit. This tension might be
explained by the increasing opposition against the kermis. Indeed, the performance of the
English minstrels was only one of the many kermis “attractions” that received negative remarks
from the author. The bitter tone of the reviewer, therefore, does not necessarily resemble the
opinions of the people that visited the kermis. The author of the letter seemed to have understood
this when he finished his review about the kermis in Amsterdam stating that nobody would
probably care if he told the readers “that two troupes of negro singers infested the city, of which
– incredible enough! – one of them got hired by the Paleis voor Volksvlijt.”444
440 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, September 11, 1868. 441 “Amsterdam, woensdag 23 september,” Algemeen Handelsblad, September 24, 1868. 442 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, September 26 and September 28, 1868. 443 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, October 7, 1868. 444 “Brieven uit de Hoofdstad. Amsterdam, den 9 Oct,” Utrechtsche provinicaal en stedelijk dagblad, October 12,
1868.
82
Even though the lower classes still enjoyed the kermis, opponents of the kermis prevailed. Eight
years after this negative review the kermis in Amsterdam was abolished. Interestingly, the
abolishment of the kermis did not have a significant effect on the Tom plays, which remained to
be performed at least every other year in Amsterdam. However, a tension between social classes
as regards to entertainment was also visible during a Tom play in 1859:
Overall, the play was very satisfactory, just as we experienced in previous years, the
audience cheered repeatedly and called the actors back on stage in the end. However, this
time, the terrible noise on the lesser ranks made the attendance less pleasant: we do not
perceive it as a beautiful spectacle, seeing people tossing one another, fighting and
screaming, whereby one constantly has to fear (…) to be hurled into the room. It strikes
us as strange that the directors of the theater or the police, preferably both, did not yet
succeed to end the repeatedly and profound disturbance, which has a harmful influence
on the attendance of a civilized audience.445
Although this review also reveals that both the lower and higher classes of the Dutch society still
visited the Tom play in the late 1850s, a distinction between “highbrow” and “lowbrow”
entertainment originated during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.446 As a consequence of
public education efforts, “simple plays were supplanted by psychological dramas from Ibsen”
and “the stage school only provided diplomas for the ambitious youth.”447 Therefore, “the people
that were making a living of the kermis had to go further without a diploma.”448
The abolition of the kermis in Amsterdam is important to mention in more detail. Not
only did other cities follow the example of Amsterdam, the disappearance of the kermis marked
the distinction between elitist and popular entertainment.449 In short, one aimed “to elevate the
folk.”450 This aim to educate and elevate the folk, in turn, paved the way for the World’s Fair,
which will be discussed later. Therefore, in combination with economic, medical, and religious
reasons, the kermis in Amsterdam was abolished in 1876. Not surprisingly, the abolishment of
the kermis was not welcomed by everyone. As described in the New York Times in October
1876:
445 “Concert- en tooneelnieuws. Amsterdam, Zondag 30 januarij, Algemeen Handelsblad, January 31, 1859. 446 Klöters, 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland, 36. 447 Ibid. 448 Ibid. 449 Ibid. 450 Keyser, Blom, and Klöters, “Komt Dat Zien. De Amsterdamse Kermis in de Negentiende Eeuw,” 38.
83
Monday, the 11th, the day on which the fair always began, great crowds collected in the
open places of the city, singing seditious songs, principally directed against the
Burgomaster. About 9 o’clock a great mob came (…) to the Damsquare (…). There it
divided into two parts; one took its way through the Rokin and Kalverstraat, the other
through the Palacestreet to the Heerengracht, smashing many beautiful shop fronts on the
line of march.451
Two more nights of conflict between the military and inhabitants of Amsterdam followed. In the
end, “one hundred of the rioters were arrested, and twelve taken to the hospital.” 452 According to
a Dutch newspaper article, the participants of the riot were “mostly brats between 18 and 20
years old,” with “some female individuals from the lowest alloy.”453 Moreover, the next day, the
crowd “existed of at least 2000 [young] men.”454 Noteworthy is that the vandalism was directed
at shops, since one of the main reason local governments gave for the abolishment of the kermis
had been economical. Now that products were produced by factories, and a middle-class of
permanent shop owners had arisen, the kermis was no longer an economic necessity.455 All in all,
the abolition of the kermis revealed a slowly growing class dissent.
Nevertheless, the abolition of the kermis did not mean that the Dutch public could not
learn about other cultures anymore. In contrast, the public spectacles increased as a consequence
of the imperialistic urge that began to dominate the life of citizens in the Dutch East Indies.
However, in order to achieve imperialistic goals, the Dutch government needed consent of all its
citizens. This consent, in turn, would be achieved by spreading knowledge about the Dutch East
Indies. This aim to spread knowledge about the Dutch East Indies, in combination with the aim
of the Dutch government to make a “world city” out of Amsterdam, resulted in the decision of
the Dutch government to become the host of the World’s Fair in Amsterdam in 1883.456 World’s
Fairs can be described as large public exhibitions of different character which were (and still are)
held in different parts of the world. For example, between 1876 and 1916, the World’s Fairs that
were held in the United States “reflected the efforts by America’s intellectual, political, and
451 “Rioting in Amsterdam: Results of the Abolition of a Fair – The Peaceful Hollander Rampant, ”New York Times,
October 4, 1876. 452 “Stadsnieuws,” Het nieuws van den dag, September 13, 1876. 453 Ibid. 454 “De Ongeregeldheden,” De tijd: dagblad voor Nederland, September 13, 1876. 455 Klöters, 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland, 36. 456 S. Rodrigues Miranda, de, Amsterdam En Zijne Bevolking in de Negentiende Eeuw (Amsterdam: Scheltema en
Holkema, 1921), 156.
84
business leaders to establish a consensus about their priorities and their vision of progress as
racial dominance and economic growth.”457
This vision of racial dominance was also visible at the Dutch World’s Fair. At the
Colonial Exhibition, for example, Surinamese Creoles were displayed, “who had been told that
the King of the Netherlands was giving a party for ‘all nations’ to which they had been
invited.”458 Although this fascination with blackness was not bound to Europe, “for the first time,
‘natives’ would be exhibited on a large scale” at the World’s Fair in Amsterdam.459 Not
surprisingly, the exhibition of Surinamese in a “circus-like tent” was a “great curiosity” in the
Netherlands.460 Given the unique character of the exhibition, visitors of the Fair had to pay extra
to see the Surinamese natives. Overall, more than 1.5 million people visited the Fair in
Amsterdam, with an average of about 20 to 22000 visitors a day.461 One was especially surprised
by the great attendance of Dutch people from the provinces.462 This interest in the Surinamese
exhibition in the Netherlands can be explained by the “the relatively small black presence and
lack of any need to maintain a system based on their oppression” which “created a broad
curiosity and interest in ‘negroes’.”463
Needless to say, it would not be surprising if Uncle Tom had influenced this interest in
free slaves. Indeed, it would not be far-fetched to argue that Uncle Tom created an image in the
Dutch mind about what slaves and freed slaves would look like, as was the case in the United
States. As Blight argued, “Mrs. Stowe’s characters forever riddled the racial and historical
imaginations of Americans, black and white. In their memories, Northern white soldiers, even if
they had not actually seen Uncle Tom or Little Eva in Louisiana, knew they were there.”464 This,
of course, also explains why Dutch citizens and Northern Americans alike generally perceived
Uncle Tom’s characters as reality.
457 Robert W. Rydell, All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International Expositions, 1876-1916
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 8. 458 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 96. 459 Ileen Montijn, Kermis van Koophandel. de Amsterdamse Wereldtentoonstelling van 1883 (Bussum: Van
Holkema & Warendorf, 1983), 35. 460 Ibid. 461 Compared to the 16 million visitors in Paris five years earlier, the Dutch visitors were less than remarkable. Ibid.,
56. 462 Ibid., 49. 463 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 123. 464 David W Blight, Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 2001), 193.
85
However, as stated above, this fascination with blackness was not only bound to the Netherlands:
“During the heyday of imperialism many exhibits of peoples were organized: at a price, the
public were shown Negroes (…) situated in their own dwellings. In colonial ethnography the
colonized were turned into objects of knowledge, in the colonial exhibits they were turned into
spectacles.”465 As Pickering explained, both blackface and these exhibitions were part of
“cultural self-definition operating through a sense of what ‘we’ were not rather than of what ‘we’
were.”466 The blackface mask provided a “desire for engagement with cultural otherness, and
values central to society’s ideas and images of itself.”467
Indeed, blackface minstrelsy “contributed significantly to racist and imperialists
discourse.”468 Similarly, Meer explained that the displaying of “blackness” was important
because “blackface imparted a complacent sense of racial superiority and ‘was undoubtedly
integrated into the Victorian culture of imperialism, not in a relation of cause and effect but as a
powerful agent of reinforcement.”469 Indeed, the exhibition of Surinamese reinforced the racial
performance in the Tom play: “In western societies the black body in particular has (...) served as
the site of both ‘remembering and denying the inescapability of the body in the economy’.”470
Furthermore, the Surinamese were described as “kind of childlike, that is naturally
appealing; real children of tropical nature, carefree, enjoying life without worries, restless, keen
on movement, noise, colour, light, but also kind and sweet.”471 This description sounds familiar.
During the Dutch debate about the emancipation of its slaves, the Dutch government and people
already described the Surinamese subjects as children who needed help to become civilized. One
received the same message from several of the scenes in the Dutch Tom play discussed earlier.
Exhibitions like these only emphasized the backwardness of free slaves. Moreover, to emphasize
the global view on race, a similar description was given of the American blacks that were
represented in a concession called “The South” at the World’s Fair in Philadelphia in 1876.
These “newly freed blacks in the South” were described as “happy, carefree, and in good
hands.”472
465 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 94–5. 466 Pickering, Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain, 106–7. 467 Ibid., 107. 468 Ibid. 469 Meer, Uncle Tom Mania, 152. 470 Lott, Love and Theft, 118. 471 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 89. 472 Rydell, All the World’s a Fair, 28–9; Lott, Love and Theft, 113.
86
The adaptability of Uncle Tom
Not only Surinamese were present in Amsterdam in 1883. In 1883, Javanese natives
“voluntarily” participated in a production of Uncle Tom in the Grand Theatre.473 The Tom play
was performed by a Dutch troupe under the direction of Abraham van Lier, the same man who
had invited Jarrett and Palmer.474 Not surprisingly, the Javanese natives that participated in the
Tom play were part of an exhibition of the World’s Fair. It is remarkable that Van Lier did not
use the Surinamese, which were also present at the World’s Fair, to play the black slaves in
Uncle Tom. One of the reasons for Van Lier’s preference towards Javanese might have been the
fact that slavery in Suriname had been abolished, whereas the discourse about the Dutch East
Indies was still taking place. The Dutch East Indies discourse had become prominent partly
because of the ongoing Aceh War, which “attracted fierce criticism from military and
administrative circles in the Netherlands.”475
Interestingly, a rather hostile article written by an unknown author in a local Javanese
newspaper noted this odd choice by Van Lier’s to use “Javanese as American negroes, as
slaves.”476 Remarkably, the author argued strongly against the message of the Tom play, and the
image of blacks it presented. For example, he denounces the improper Dutch that is spoken by
the slaves, and “all those body contortions which supposedly are continuously carried out by
negroes (…) and manifestations of emancipation [Bengali as a dandy] which have nothing to do
with reality.”477 This latter remark does not only reveal that the blackface performances were
unrealistic, as is evident in earlier reviews, it also comments about the unrealistic manifestation
of emancipation. Does the author mean that the dandy figure is not real? If so, what did
emancipation look like according to the author? These questions are hard to answer. However,
this remark reveals a certain tension between an unrealistic portrayal of the black race on the one
hand, and an unrealistic depiction of emancipated slaves on the other. Why did the author doubt
the authenticity of the Tom play?
473 “Advertentie,” Algemeen Handelsblad, June 29, 1883. 474 “Stadsnieuws,” Het Nieuws van den dag, June 30, 1883. 475 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, 32. 476 “Eenige Opmerkingen Omtrent Tooneel, Tooneelisten En Tooneelstukken.,” Soerabaijasch Handelsblad,
December 6, 1883. Paragraph based on this article. 477 Ibid.
87
The above remarks of the author might have been rooted in a general rejection of the Tom plays.
To the astonishment of the author, people “still” enjoyed the Tom plays. Indeed, the Tom play,
“as edited for the Dutch stage according to Stowe’s novel, hits all the requirements of aesthetics
in the face.”478 Most importantly, the author states that the Javanese are incomparable to the
negro slaves, and Van Lier “contributed to the misconception the public received from the
Javanese” – “of which one in the Netherlands had a poor understanding already.”479 Ironically,
the World’s Fair was supposed to increase Dutch citizens’ “poor understanding” of the East
Indies.480 Nonetheless, although disguised as an elitist denunciation of the popularity of the Tom
play among Dutch citizens, the concern of this author seemed to have been similar to those of the
Dutch citizens in the East Indies during the 1850s and 1860s: the author feared the consequences
of the Tom play. Since the Tom play had an enormous effect on the slavery discourse, the author
might have feared its effect on the East Indies discourse. Indeed, the Dutch citizens connected
Suriname to the cause of the “American negroes, as slaves” before. Because of the American
nature of the story, this connection could easily be made between Javanese and American slaves
as well.
Indeed, the author is mostly concerned with the message the thirty or forty Javanese
received from their performance in the Netherlands: the Javanese will realize that they were
treated as slaves by the Dutch, and decide that “it would be a good deed to emancipate and evade
from their domination.”481 In other words, the author feared a Javanese uprising fueled by Uncle
Tom. A similar notion was visible in the Netherlands at the end of the 1880s, and prevailed in
Batavia during the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1887, in an article about Multatuli
and emancipation in the United States, the author states that one can use the American
experience with free slaves as analogy for the future of the Dutch Indies: “The brown will follow
their black brothers.”482 Interestingly, one can also deduce from this article that Multatuli
received the blame for “the increasing self-consciousness of the Javanese.”483
Nevertheless, the Javanese attracted a great curious Dutch audience. A review about the
participation of the Javanese in the Tom play in De Amsterdammer mentions that the Javanese,
478 Ibid. 479 Ibid. 480 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, chap. 2.3. 481 “Eenige Opmerkingen Omtrent Tooneel, Tooneelisten En Tooneelstukken.” 482 “Byron En Multatuli.,” De locomotief, July 19, 1887. 483 Ibid.
88
both male and female, watched another Dutch play before going on stage themselves to rehearse
the Tom play: “Whether they understood any of it? Sure not a lot – but they still liked the play
and the music and the surrounding in general.”484 The author writes that “there was a lot to see
for our little Javanese – the décor, the machines, they behold it all in silent admiration.”485
Unfortunately, “those who expected us to tell which role the Javanese would play in The Cabin
and how they do it, are mistaken;” One just had to pay a visit to the theater to see for
themselves.486
In July, a review about the Tom play mentioned that “the play by Dumanoir and Dennery
still contained enough qualities (…) to entertain.”487 Not surprisingly, “Jos van Lier deservingly
gave voice to the funny Bengali.”488 The review ends with the following: “We should not forget
to praise the good little Javanese, who with so much ease fulfilled the roles of …. Negroes from
the Southern States of North-America.”489 Needless to say, the natural talent of the Javanese only
reinforced the notions of racial superiority among the Dutch audience. Although the Javanese did
not play the role of Bengali or Eliza, the participation of Javanese as black slaves were etched in
the audience’s their memory. In a letter to the editor in 1889, a man called Waltham remembers
Van Lier’s Tom play from 1883: “ – Thundering! It was during the exhibition and the parlor was
packed.”490
Indeed, the above remarks reveal both sympathy toward the Javanese subjects, as well as
a sense of racial superiority among the audience. This interchangeability of the American slaves
with (colonial) subjects from other countries would become clearer after the turn of the century.
For example, although the Dutch comedian Abraham de Winter eventually became a proponent
of the Dutch colonial rule in the East Indies, he sympathized with those Javanese that were
treated badly by the Dutch government. De Winter, who became popular because he
“miraculously” was a “comedian yet civilized, funny, and intelligent,” revealed this sympathy in
a scene called “uncivilized negroes” two decades later.491
484 “Gei Uitspraa,” De Amsterdammer: Dagblad Voor Nederland, June 30, 1883. 485 Ibid. 486 Ibid. 487 “Kunst En Letteren,” Algemeen Handelsblad, July 2, 1883. 488 Ibid. 489 Ibid. 490 Waltham, “Brieven Uit Java’s Oosthoek. Soerabaja, 27 Augustus 1889.,” Java-bode, September 2, 1889. 491 Klöters, 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland, 46 and 50.
89
No Javanese ever invented:
The throwing of bombs, or dynamite!
No anarchists addicted to bloodlust
No deaths that we are secretly planning
But oh… we are only uncivilized
Just as animals, they call us wild!492
Not only was this scene spoken in improper Dutch, the title and the last two sentences reveal that
the Javanese were referred to as “negroes.” Moreover, the sympathies towards the Javanese seem
to concur perfectly with the sympathy towards blacks in Uncle Tom. The Dutch identification
between colonialism and slavery would become even more prominent among the colonized
themselves during the decolonization process in the twentieth century.493
Not surprisingly, the amount of advertisement for the novel of Stowe grew exceptionally
after the World’s Fair. Remarkably, the edition of Uncle Tom that was published in 1885 began
to focus on the suffering of the slaves.494 Two illustrations even depict the two scenes from the
last part of the novel: Tom in conflict with the cruel slaver Legree, and a less romantic version of
the death of Uncle Tom.495 More importantly, the novel remained a success. In 1892, a short
paragraph in a local Dutch newspaper estimated that at least 100,000 copies of the novel were
sold.496 Not surprisingly, the same paragraph announced that the novels were temporarily sold
out. In that same year, according to an article in a local Amsterdam newspaper, the actors of the
Uncle Tom play were so convincing that the audience of the Grand Theatre yelled during the
show, waylaid actors who played the white villainy roles, and refused to give those actors shelter
when the show finished.497 These strong feelings during the Tom play, and the illustrations that
focused on the suffering of the slaves, might indicate the overall opposition against the colonial
rule in the Dutch East Indies.
Remarkably, the eleventh edition of Uncle Tom published in 1893 portrayed a completely
different image of slavery than the 1885 edition. The 1893 edition included no less than seventy
illustrations. Ten years after the World’s Fair, Uncle Tom seemed to support the colonial efforts
of the Dutch government in the East Indies. Besides the conventional relationship between black
492 Ibid., 50. 493 Oostindie, “Slavernij, Canon En Trauma,” 18. 494 Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.” 495 Ibid. 496 “BINNENLAND. LEEUWARDEN, 23 Mei.,” Leeuwarder courant, May 24, 1892, Leeuwarden edition. 497 “HET TOONEEL.,” Het Nieuws van den dag: kleine courant, December 31, 1891.
90
and white, this edition mostly included “pastoral slave types,” which were also included in the
American edition of 1892.498 The illustrations of E.C. Kemble chosen for the Dutch edition were
mostly of happy, dancing and archly smiling black women and children, “the child-like naïve
negro, and the dandy.”499 The “powerful and serious young black men” and the illustrations that
depicted field-work which were both included in E.C. Kemble’s version were left out in the
Dutch version.500 According to Kolfin, this suggests that the publisher targeted a female
public.501 However, these careful chosen illustrations also concur with the trend of the Tom play,
the World’s Fair’s exhibitions in Amsterdam, and the emancipation discourse in the Netherlands:
racial domination was a good thing. As Nimako and Stephen Small argued, “the unequal access
to power [between the Dutch folk and the elite] that followed slavery, ensured that it was the
former master-enslavers – and the white elites in the metropolis of each empire – that were most
able to portray their version of how slavery ended; and their version of the meaning and
significance of the legacy of slavery.”502 Indeed, the portrayal of satisfied slaves justified the
intensified colonial rule in the Dutch East Indies.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the illustrations that depicted the situations of
conflict in the novel did focus on abolitionist themes: the torture, selling, and fleeing of slaves.
Although Kolfin argued that this sudden focus on abolitionist themes might have been related to
the gained distance from “the black page of Dutch history,” he believes it had more to do with
the “aim of the publisher to include the most sensational illustrations.”503 Indeed, the depicted
torture and other slavery related issues belonged to the past. As revealed in this and the previous
chapter, the new issue was preparing the freed slaves for freedom. However, given their racial
inferior characteristics, one could not simply leave the freed slaves to their own fate. Indeed,
especially after “saving” them from the injustices from the past, it was justified – if not the duty
– of the Dutch government and its citizens to take care of their (freed) subjects.504 As Nederveen
498 Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.” 499 Ibid. 500 Ibid. 501 Ibid. 502 New Perspectives on Slavery and Colonialism in the Caribbean, Ninsee Reeks 8 (Den Haag: Amrit/Ninsee,
2012), 94. 503 Kolfin, “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.” 504 Western Civilization: Beyond Boundaries, 5th ed (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008), 743.
91
Pieterse perfectly stated, race had “established new social boundaries at the very time old ones
were annulled.”505 Indeed, “race was the answer to ‘the problem of freedom’.”506
Not surprisingly, the public sentiment toward the nature of colonial rule in the Dutch East
Indies became more positive after 1894, with the military conquest of the island Lombok.507
Once again, it should be noted that this paternalistic self-image of whites that justified
imperialistic urges was a part of the European imperialism. Indeed, the notion of the “White
Man’s Burden,” celebrated in a poem of Rudyard Kipling in 1899, was shared among European
nations. In simple terms, the idea of the “White Man’s Burden” is that is the duty of white,
civilized people to civilize the nonwhites.508 Needless to say, this becomes clear in the poem of
Kipling:
Take up the White Man’s burden –
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need
In light of this outspoken racial justification for whites to civilize blacks, it is not surprising that
the Tom plays – which had encompassed the tension between race and emancipation since the
1850s – remained popular in cities like Leeuwarden, Rotterdam and Amsterdam until at least the
late nineteenth century.509 The article which stated that opening performance of the kermis in
Tilburg was a “gigantic success” in 1900, might have been one of the last announcements of a
live performance of Uncle Tom.510 With the exception of a performance in Heereveen in 1906,
no additional announcements were made in newspapers.511
The Tom play slowly disappeared while the “Ethical Policy” of the Dutch government
emerged and was officially launched in 1901. According to Bloembergen, “this policy had the
stated aim of elevating the indigenous population of the Dutch East Indies and the economic
development of the region. For this exalted goal, it was essential to place the region under
505 Nederveen Pieterse, White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture., 63. 506 Ibid. 507 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, 32. 508 Western Civilization, 743. 509 Advertisement about the Tom play announced the performance in Alkmaar (1883), Leeuwarden (1885), Grand
Theater in Amsterdam (1887), Amsterdam (1888), Leeuwarden (1889), Amsterdam (Van Lier) (1891), Amsterdam
and Rotterdam (1893), Amsterdam (1895), Rotterdam and Amsterdam (1898). 510 “Advertentie,” Tilburgsche courant, 23-8-1900. 511 “Advertentie,” Nieuwsblad van Friesland: Hepkema’s courant, 24-11-1906.
92
effective authority.”512 In other words, the tension between race and emancipation revealed with
the visit of Aldridge and blackface troupes to the Netherlands, and the publication of Uncle Tom
and the subsequent Tom play, was solved. Nearly half a century after the publication of Uncle
Tom, racial domination over nonwhites was no longer associated with slavery. Indeed, the
“science of race” had endured, for racial domination was now perceived as an essential means to
further emancipate the colonial subjects. As the repeated adaptability of Uncle Tom into the
emancipation discourse had proven, a review in a Dutch magazine called Eigen Haard of Uncle
Tom in 1896 perfectly summarized the nature of Uncle Tom’s reality, impact, and future use:
Uncle Tom’s Cabin has conquered the world, and it has done more for the abolition of
slavery than all the orators in Parliament and all the newspaper reporters together (…).
The fictional part in the novel is slight, as her A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin may prove
(…). Apart from its historical significance, Uncle Tom’s Cabin has become a classic for
people belonging to an older generation. We simply idolized the book in our youth, but
[the characters] (…) will remain classis figures for many generations to come.513
512 Bloembergen, Colonial Spectacles, 20. 513 Riewals and Bakker, The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands 1824-1900. A
Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals., 268.
93
Epilogue
During the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, Tom plays
slowly began to disappear. There can be appointed many reasons for the diminishing appeal of
the Tom plays. In the first place, real African Americans began to perform in the Dutch theaters
around 1880. The most famous and admired singers that visited the Netherlands were most likely
The Fisk Jubilee Singers.514 In 1905, an interesting article in the newspaper Algemeen
Handelsblad explained the inextricably of the “negro-melody and negro-poetry.” It is noteworthy
that the author dates the artistic “literature-poetry-music” expression of African Americans to the
“founder of the minstrel-song, the negro Thomas D. Rice” in 1830. Rice, apparently, gave the
world “the first, the real plantation-ballad” with his musical sketch of “Jim Crow.” The author
continues his argument with the Jubilee-singers of the Fisk University. When “the negroes”
performed in Europe and America, “one did laugh at first when the darkies pompously
performed in their spruce little suits, frizzy black heads above the blazing-white of collar and
stock tie.” However, the author states that as soon as people began to imitate the jubilee singers,
the quality of the performances reduced as it turned into minstrel shows. In other words, the
author strongly preferred the performance of “real blacks” over the cabaret, or vaudeville,
performance of those imitating real blacks. Moreover, the last time the author witnessed such a
café chantant performance was at Barnum and Bailey.515
Indeed, a second reason can be ascribed to the fact that American cultural entrepreneurs
began to visit the Netherlands, a trend Jarrett and Palmer were a part of in 1880. One of the
greatest American entrepreneurs was P.T. Barnum. In his Great American Museum, Barnum
developed “the variety acts that were coming to characterize many downtown “vaudevilles.”516
When Barnum realized his visitors were appealed to – as much as Barnum himself was intrigued
by – “blackness,” Barnum began to host “blackface acts through the antebellum years,” and “ran
stage productions of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in the 1850s.517 Indeed,
Conway’s version of the Tom play opened in P.T. Barnum’s American Museum.518 As one of the
514 “Stadnieuws,” Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, April 24, 1896. 515 Paragraph: “Poëzie en melodie bij de negers.,” Algemeen Handelsblad, July 22, 1905. 516 Lott, Love and Theft, 72. 517 Ibid., 77. 518 Toll, Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America, 90–1.
94
entrepreneurs that “revolutionized commercial forms of leisure,” Barnum motto was not
surprising: “Give the people the best – spare no expense in doing it – and they’ll reward you.”519
Indeed, Barnum did not spare expenses. In 1901, Barnum and his business partner James
A. Bailey visited the Netherlands with their circus. An article about their visit stated that it was
remarkable what kind of movement the circus caused: “People from everywhere are traveling to
the capital cities where the [circus] tents arise.”520 For example, 20.000 tickets were sold in
Leeuwarden on the opening day. This articles mentions as well that a separate exhibition that
“harbors some curiosities” were the minstrel and vaudeville-shows.521 In a later article,
announcing the same exhibition, a division is made between animals and human curiosities: “The
wild animals and the human living curiosities” are placed on a statue in the middle of the tent.522
As the World’s Fair revealed, these “human curiosities” were not new to the Dutch public.
However, these curiosities remained popular: “The arrival of the enormous exhibition is met with
feverishly excitement by people in and out of the city.”523 An author of a review even stated that
“from the moment Barnum & Bailey’s exhibition set foot on the continent of Europe, various
political, local, and personal issues were put aside.” 524 Indeed, the exhibition has been the talk of
the day of “rich and poor,” young and old, for a while. All in all, the announcements made clear
that visitors should be there on time to watch the “living curiosities” before the actual show
begins, because they will not be on display once the show is over.525 Whether “the show” was a
minstrel show or not, “blackness” was on display, and the Dutch audience loved it.
Lastly, the first film of Uncle Tom was made in the United States in 1903, and could be
viewed in 1905 in Soerabaja, Batavia and Utrecht, and appeared to be a “magnificent success
everywhere.”526 Uncle Tom was played by white actors in blackface until a remake in 1914.527
However, although Uncle Tom’s role would be played by African American actors from 1914
519 Ibid., 72, and “James A. Bailey, King of Circus Men, is Dead,” New York Times, April 12, 1906. 520 “Advertentie,” Java-bode, June 10, 1881. 521 Parahraph: “STADSNIEUWS. Loop der bevolking en gezondheidstoestand hier ter stede.,” Algemeen
Handelsblad, September 5, 1901, 23099. 522 “BINNENLAND. TILBURG, 20 September.,” Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, September 29, 1901, 2195. 523 Ibid. 524 Ibid. 525 Ibid. 526 “Advertentie,” Het Centrum, March 11, 1911, and Soerabaijasch handelsblad, June 21, 1905 and Het nieuws van
den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië, July 19, 1905. 527 Between 1903 and 1927, nine Uncle Tom’s Cabin films were made.
95
onwards, white actors remained to fulfill the role of the buffoonish Topsy.528 Meanwhile,
occasional Tom plays were still performed during the circus in cities like Amsterdam and
Rotterdam. In the 1927 film production of Uncle Tom, the African American James B. Lowe
played Uncle Tom, and got the “attention of the whole world because of his excellent
performance.”529 Furthermore, the 1927 version became enormously popular when it arrived on
the big screen in the Netherlands in 1928. The announcement for the film in Amsterdam stated
that there has not been a film in years that would attract so many people. In fact, because of the
expected turnout the Theater Tuschinski “strongly advised” visitors “for this masterpiece” to
reserve seats one day prior to the screening.530 Not surprisingly, the film was prolonged at least
three times in Amsterdam, and run more than 12 weeks in total.531 Moreover, an advertisement in
Batavia announced that “all the previous records have been broken with the screening of this
film,” and the theater had to “reject hundreds of visitors because of lack of seats.”532
All in all, American blackface minstrelsy, Uncle Tom and the Uncle Tom play would not
disappear completely from the Dutch society. However, with the more frequent arrival of
African Americans, American entrepreneurs, and American films, it did become more difficult
for the Dutch audience to make the American forms of entertainment their own. It would be
interesting to explore whether the tension between race and emancipation remained visible in
Dutch reviews about these “modernized” American cultural forms during the twentieth century.
528 There is only one known American remake of Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1987, in which Topsy is played by an
African American woman. However, this film was not broadcasted in the theaters, yet aired on television instead,
Stan Lathan, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Drama, 1987. 529 “Filmland filmpraat. De Negerhut van Oom Tom,” Het volk, 23-2-1928. 530 A similar message could be found in an advertisement in ‘s –Gravenhage. Moreover, the film could be viewed in
cities like Rotterdam, Hilversum, Utrecht, Tilburg, Leeuwarden, Heereveen, Batavia and Soerabaja. “Advertentie,”
Het volk, April 11, 1928. 531 “Advertentie,” Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, August 25, 1928. 532 “Advertentie,” Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië, October 1, 1928.
96
Conclusion
American blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom, combined in the Tom play, revealed a tension
between a sense of white racial superiority and the rejection of any form of domination. Already
in the early 1840s, the influence of the “science of race” on the Dutch reception of American
blackface minstrelsy became evident. However, the British blackface troupe was not only
positively received because of the Dutch curiosity toward the black race. The decision of the
advertisers or the British minstrel troupe to change their troupes’ name from The Ethiopian
Serenaders to the Lantum Negerzangers van Amerika indicates that the American element of the
performances appealed to the Dutch audiences. Indeed, the American blackface minstrel dandy
type was a new experience for the Dutch audiences, who had been predominately concerned with
black images of the African continent prior to the visit of “American” minstrels to the
Netherlands. The existing Dutch image of blacks in combination with the dandy type provided
for an interesting spectacle: African Americans. Indeed, although the blackface troupes that
visited the Netherlands were not Americans, the performances were still perceived as
“American.”
However, the reactions of the Dutch audiences to these dandy types resembled the Dutch
slavery debate that took off in the early 1840s. Already in the 1840s, the slavery discourse was
less about whether the Dutch government should abolish slavery, and more about the question
when the government should abolish slavery and what happens after slavery has been abolished.
As in the United States, the answers were diverse. Moreover, given the audience’s reactions on
the dandy figure, freed blacks would most likely not become fully equal to whites. The questions
concerning the abolition of slavery did not prevent Uncle Tom from becoming an instant
bestseller in the Netherlands. The immediate acceptance of Uncle Tom in the Dutch society was
not only based on Stowe’s ability to appeal to one’s emotional senses. The performance of
blackface minstrels in the Netherlands a few years earlier caused at least some curiosity toward
African American culture among Dutch citizens that were living in the major cities. More than
any preceding American novel, Uncle Tom provided the Dutch readers with a chance to peek
into the lives of African American slaves.
Nevertheless, the more or less favorable anti-slavery climate in the Netherlands surely
advanced the acceptance of the popular novel that had gained international popularity. Not
97
surprisingly, it did not take long for Dutch abolitionists to write similar accounts about the
situation in the Dutch colonies, making use of the outrage among Dutch citizens caused by Uncle
Tom. This outrage among Dutch citizens caused by the cruel situation of slavery in the United
States resulted in the need of Dutch citizens to help those who were unable to take care of
themselves. The seeds of the justification of racial domination that followed the abolition of
slavery became already visible in the Dutch reaction to Uncle Tom. However, the overall
assumption of the Dutch readers that Uncle Tom was the truthful depiction of slavery, resulted in
criticism toward the Dutch accounts on slavery. Accounts from abolitionists as J. Wolbers,
Wolbert Robert van Hoëvell, and Multatuli, never reached the same level of reality as regards to
the Dutch colonies as Uncle Tom did.
The perceived difference in reality between the Dutch accounts and Uncle Tom might
have been related to the tension between race and emancipation that was already visible in the
Dutch discourse on slavery and present in the reactions on the American blackface minstrel
performances in the 1840s. The Dutch Tom play gave the Dutch blackface actors the freedom to
address the concerns regarding emancipation, and discuss this tension without letting go of the
anti-slavery message. Indeed, generally, Dutch citizens in the Netherlands undoubtedly opposed
slavery. This was different for the Dutch citizens in the Dutch colonies. Neither American
blackface minstrelsy, nor Uncle Tom and the Tom play were present in the Dutch colonies. This
is not surprising, since the Southern states of America had both outlawed blackface minstrelsy
and Uncle Tom before the Civil War. The rejection of both cultural forms in the slave states of
America proves that there was an underlying tension regarding race and emancipation in
blackface minstrelsy and Uncle Tom.
Although the Dutch blackface actors used a French script for the Tom play, which
emphasizes that the discourse was transnational, the Dutch actors could have used one of the
many American versions as well. The most popular scripts were those of Aiken and Conway.
Whereas Aiken hold on to the novel as much as possible, Conway’s version closely resembled a
minstrel show. For instance, Tom died in Aiken’s version, whilst Tom survived in Conway’s
version. However, the fact that the Dutch actors did not choose the American scripts indicates
that the French script – whether altered during the translation or not – was deemed more
appealing to the Dutch public. Indeed, the French script would be the only version Dutch actors
performed until the disappearance of the Tom play at the turn of the twentieth century.
98
The Dutch Tom play mainly revealed the tension between race and emancipation through its
character Philemon and Bengali. Both characters were not in Stowe’s novel. Ironically, both the
rifle fight at the end of the Tom play and the addition of Philemon and Bengali might have been
added to make the play look more “American.” It is not unlikely that Philemon and Bengali
added an “American” character to the Tom play, since they closely resembled American minstrel
types. For instance, Philemon turns out to be a lying, mischievous slave, like Topsy. Bengali, on
the other hand, is a stupid and childish slave. One of the most important scenes, however,
occurred when Bengali was a free man. Bengali’s arrival on stage, dressed as a gentleman,
evoked laughter from his fellow actors as well as from the audiences. Just as with the blackface
minstrel performances, dandy blacks were highly amusing.
Moreover, the Dutch perception of blacks became clear with the multiple references
between Bengali and monkeys. Not only did one fellow actor literally compare Bengali to a
monkey, Bengali’s inferior position in the society became even more clear when Bengali
voluntarily (although his lack of money did not leave him a choice) became the subject of
another master. This proved that black people could not take care of themselves after the
abolition of slavery. Furthermore, a form of domination after slavery was needed to help the
freed slaves participate in a civilized society. Indeed, in the Dutch Tom play, even Uncle Tom
argues that he does not want to be a free man, since he cannot take care of himself. Similarly,
Senator Bird explained one should first educate the slaves (make them “human”) before one
could free them.
As was the case for the novel, the “Americanness” of the Tom play was a part of its
appeal among the Dutch citizens. This can be seen from the fact that neither the Max Havelaar
play nor the Dutch comical blackface performances, became as popular as the Tom play. In
contrast, Ira Aldridge’s visit to the Netherlands in 1855 left a deep impression behind among
those Dutch citizens that attended one of his many performances. Nevertheless, as a free African
American, Aldridge did not escape the tension between race and emancipation. Although some
argued that Aldridge was the living proof of a successful emancipation process, one still
emphasized his inferior race. In the end, Aldridge received a sufficient amount of Dutch
sympathy, which allowed Aldridge to contribute to the Dutch abolitionist movement.
Ironically, the same “Americanness” was a large part of the criticism against American
blackface minstrelsy in the Dutch East Indies. According to authors of a hostile letter about the
99
New-York Serenaders, no one perceived the American blackface acts as art. Indeed, the authors’
verdict remained the same when it turned out that there was only one American blackface artist
in troupe. Although an underlying class dissent became visible in the letter, the authors were
most likely concerned with the threatening message of anti-slavery. The New-York Serenaders
performed anti-slavery songs about Uncle Tom, and reenacted plantation life. Since the Dutch
citizens in the Dutch East Indies were mainly concerned with slavery related trade, depended on
the Cultivation System, and were outnumbered by nonwhite subjects, the anti-slavery message
did not appeal to the Dutch audience. Indeed, the influence of the American Uncle Tom on the
Dutch public opinion threatened the Dutch citizens in the Dutch East Indies.
After the abolition of slavery in the Dutch empire, the Tom play did not lose its appeal.
Indeed, the Tom play easily suited the discourse on the Dutch East Indies, which became
indispensable after the publication of Max Havelaar. The adaptability of the Tom play to the
debate about the East Indies might even be one of the explanations for Max Havelaar
unpopularity as compared to Uncle Tom. Nonetheless, the Dutch discourse on slavery was soon
to be replaced by the discourse on colonial subjects in the Dutch East Indies. Needless to say,
blackface minstrels still generally evoked a feeling of disgust among the Dutch citizens in the
Dutch East Indies.
Nevertheless, after the abolishment of the Cultivation System in 1870 the Dutch East
Indies, blackface minstrelsy was received with merely positive reviews. These positive reviews
were mainly based on the perceived racial superiority of the white man, who needed to boast the
Dutch morale during the failing Aceh War. Gradually, the growing amount of Dutch citizens in
the Dutch East Indies engaged in the discourse on emancipation. As the Tom play revealed, it
was necessary to help Dutch colonial subjects in their civilization process. Indeed, neither the
end of slavery, nor the end of the Cultivation System, meant that Dutch governmental control
was no longer necessary: the Dutch government should not leave the colonial subjects to their
fate. This notion of colonial subjects’ need for paternalistic control, based on racial superiority,
was not bound to the Netherlands. It was a part of the larger imperialistic discourse that took
place among mainly European countries. Indeed, it was a part of the Tom play.
Especially during the failing Aceh War, the Dutch colonial government in the Dutch East
Indies needed support from the Dutch citizens in the Netherlands, which had to be done in light
of a growing class dissent. One of the perceived solutions for the Dutch government to find
100
support for their colonial rule was hosting the World’s Fair in 1883. The exhibitions of the
childlike Surinamese and the Dutch East Indies would familiarize the Dutch audience with
“their” empire. Interestingly, the use of Javanese in the Tom play both evoked sympathy by the
Dutch audience toward the Javanese, while it simultaneously enforced the audience’s perceived
superiority over the Javanese. Not surprisingly, an article in a Javanese newspaper merely
noticed the underlying threat of Javanese in the Tom play. Indeed, the main messages of the Tom
play remained that slavery was wrong. Afraid that the Javanese would get this anti-slavery
message from the Tom play, the author of the article strongly denounced the involvement of
Javanese in the Tom play, and emphasized the unrealistic nature of the American story.
All in all, by the 1880s, the main message one got from the Dutch Tom play was the
audiences’ their racial superiority and obligation to help colonial subjects. Whereas the “help”
stood for abolition of slavery between the 1840s and early 1860s, the “help” after the abolition of
slavery existed of continuing need for domination over the colonial subjects. Although the
reception of the blackface minstrelsy, Uncle Tom, and the Tom play are not as black and white as
stated above, a tension between race and emancipation was visible in all three forms of American
culture. However, in the end, the racial perception diminished the need for emancipation. Indeed,
when it came to the Tom play, blacks were neither bonded nor free.
101
Bibliography
“Aiken’s Uncle Tom.” Accessed May 18, 2013.
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/osplglaaV1t.html.
Bayly, C. A. The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons.
The Blackwell History of the World. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2004.
Bickerstaff, Isaac. The Padlock: A Comic Opera in Two Acts. Charles Wiley, 1825.
“Blackface! - The History of Racist Blackface Stereotypes.” Accessed May 26, 2013.
http://black-face.com/.
Blair, John G. “Blackface Minstrels in Cross-Cultural Perspective.” American Studies
International 28, no. 2, Special Issue on the Impact of US Culture Abroad (October
1990): 52–65.
Blakely, Allison. Blacks in the Dutch World. The Evolution of Racial Imagery in the Modern
Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001.
Bloembergen, Marieke. Colonial Spectacles: The Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies at the
World Exhibitions, 1880-1931. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2006.
Boyer, Paul S. The Enduring Vision: a History of the American People. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 2008.
DBNL. “Marita Mathijsen, Het literaire leven in de negentiende eeuw · dbnl.” Accessed May 10,
2013. http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/math004lite02_01/math004lite02_01_0003.php.
———. “Marten Douwes Teenstra, De negerslaven in de kolonie Suriname · dbnl.” Accessed
May 22, 2013.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/teen002nege01_01/teen002nege01_01_0013.php#13.
———. “Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek. Deel 1 · dbnl.” Accessed April 11,
2013. http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/molh003nieu01_01/molh003nieu01_01_1916.php.
———. “W.R. van Hoëvell, Slaven en vrijen onder de Nederlandsche wet · dbnl.” Accessed
May 5, 2013.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoev004slav01_01/hoev004slav01_01_0003.php?q=.
———. “W.R. van Hoëvell, Slaven en vrijen onder de Nederlandsche wet · dbnl.” Accessed
May 5, 2013.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoev004slav01_01/hoev004slav01_01_0003.php?q=.
De Kleine Olympus: Over Enkele Figuren Uit de Alledaagse Mythologie. Amsterdam: KNAW
Press, 2008.
De Negerhut, Tooneelspel in Acht Tafereelen. Getrokken Uit Den Roman van Dien Naam van Ms
Beecher Stowe. Naar Het Fransch van Dumanoir En D’ennery. Amsterdam: M.
Westerman & Zoon, 1862.
Debrunner, Hans Werner. Presence and Prestige: Africans in Europe. A History of Africans in
Europe before 1918. Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 1979.
Diessen, J. R. van. Jakarta/Batavia : het centrum van het Nederlandse koloniale rijk in Azië en
zijn cultuurhistorische nalatenschap / J.R. van Diessen ; [red.: Bureau Stenfert Kroese].
1e dr. De Bilt: Cantecleer, 1989.
102
Dumanoir. De Negerhut van Oom Tom. Drama in Acht Bedrijven van Dumanoir En Dennery,
Naar Het Fransch Door Cornelissen En Beems. S̀ Gravenhage, 1854.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3138395.
“Emancipating - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Accessed
June 7, 2013. http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/emancipating?show=0&t=1370593551.
Fredrickson, George M. The Black Image in the White Mind; the Debate on Afro-American
Character and Destiny, 1817-1914. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
Gerlach, Abraham Jean Arnaud. Neerlands Heldenfeiten in Oost-Indië. Bewerkt Naar Les Faster
Militaires Des Indes Orientales van A.J.A. Gerlach. Vol. III. Gebr. Belinfante and J.
Ijkema, 1876.
Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden. 4. uitg. Baarn: HB Uitgevers, 2006.
“Good Old Hut At Home.” America Singing: Nineteenth-Century Song Sheets. Accessed May
14, 2013. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/h?ammem/amss:@field(DOCID+@lit(sb10071b)).
“Het Reveil in Nederland (1817-1854).” Historisch Nieuwsblad. Accessed May 10, 2013.
http://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/25934/het-reveil-in-nederland-1817-
1854.html.
Hostmann, F.W. “Royal Tropical Institute — Over de Beschaving van Negers in Amerika, Door
Kolonisatie Met Europeanen, of Beschouwingen Omtrent de Maatschappelijke
Vereeniging Der Negers in Afrika, Den Staat, Waarin Zij Door Den Zoogenaamden
Slavenhandel Komen, En Later Door Abolitie En Emancipatie Overgaan 1850.”
Accessed June 7, 2013. http://62.41.28.253/cgi-
bin/kit.exe?a=d&d=GBHFIF1850&cl=CL2.1850&e=-0-------2en----10--1----------IN-0.
Howard, Walter T. “Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop by W. T.
Lhamon,” Journal of Social History 33, no. 2 (Winter 1999): 485–486.
Ira Aldridge, the African Roscius. Rochester Studies in African History and the Diaspora v. 28.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2007.
Janse, Maartje. “Representing Distant Victims: The Emergence of an Ethical Movement in
Dutch Colonial Politics, 1840-1880.” BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review 128, no.
1 (2013): 53–80.
Janse, Maartje J. “De afschaffers: publieke opinie, organisatie en politiek in Nederland 1840-
1880.” Wereldbibliotheek], 2007.
Jansen, G.H. Een Roes van Vrijheid. Kermis in Nederland. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel, 1987.
“Jarrett and Palmer’s Uncle Tom.” Accessed May 15, 2013.
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/rowehp.html.
“Juba - Details: Happy Are We Darkies so Gay.” Accessed March 6, 2013.
http://link.library.utoronto.ca/minstrels/songact.cfm?ID=137.
Kessel, Ineke van. Zwarte Hollanders: Afrikaanse soldaten in Nederlands-Indië. Amsterdam:
KIT Publishers, 2005.
Keyser, Maria, Paul Blom, and Jacques Klöters. “Komt Dat Zien. De Amsterdamse Kermis in de
Negentiende Eeuw.” Toneelmuseum Amsterdam, 1976.
Kip, Taalman. “Nadere Beschouwing over Het Arbeiders Vraagstuk in de Kolonie Suriname.”
De Economist 27, no. 2 (1878): 864–914.
Klöters, Jacques. 100 Jaar Amusement in Nederland. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 1987.
103
Kolfin, E. “Illustraties in Vroege Edities van Oom Tom | Buku - Bibliotheca Surinamica.”
Maatschappelijke Stromingen in de Kunst. Leidschrift 17, no. 3 (2002).
http://bukubooks.wordpress.com/oom_tom/kolfin/.
Kuiper, Roel. “Uittocht Uit de Standenmaatschappij.” Transparant 10.1, no. 4–7 (n.d.): 1999.
Kuitenbrouwer, M. “De Nederlandse Afschaffing van de Slavernij in Vergelijkend Perspectief.”
BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review 93, no. 1 (1978): 69–100.
Lathan, Stan. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Drama, 1987.
Lhamon, W. T. Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop. Cambridge,
Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2000.
“Literature: The Uncle Tom Epidemic. Little Henry and His ...” The Literary World (1847-1853)
11 (December 4, 1852).
Lott, Eric. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class. Race and
American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
“Lucy Neal.” Accessed March 6, 2013.
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3minstr/artistrespond/Mark_Turner/Turner_track5_top.ht
ml.
Mc Leod, Cynthia. Slavernij en de Memorie. Schoorl: Conserve, 2002.
Meer, Sarah. Uncle Tom Mania: Slavery, Minstrelsy, and Transatlantic Culture in the 1850s.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2005.
Meijer, Maaike, and Rosemarie Buikeman, eds. Cultuur En Migratie in Nederland. Kunsten in
Beweging 1900-1980. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, 2003.
Miranda, de, S. Rodrigues. Amsterdam En Zijne Bevolking in de Negentiende Eeuw. Amsterdam:
Scheltema en Holkema, 1921.
Montijn, Ileen. Kermis van Koophandel. de Amsterdamse Wereldtentoonstelling van 1883.
Bussum: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1983.
“Nathan Judels (1814-1903).” Accessed April 11, 2013.
http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/afbeelding/010094007586.
Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. White on Black. Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular
Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992.
New Perspectives on Slavery and Colonialism in the Caribbean. Ninsee Reeks 8. Den Haag:
Amrit/Ninsee, 2012.
“NEW YORK SERENADERS. Of All the Arts Beneath the Heaven, That Man Bus Found, or
God Has Given, None Draws the Soul so Sweet Away, As Music’s Melting, Mystic
lay.—HOGG.” The Courier. March 22, 1851.
“New-York Daily Tribune. (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, September 08, 1843, Image 3,”
September 8, 1843. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1843-09-08/ed-
1/seq-
3/#date1=1836&index=10&rows=20&words=Ethiopian+ETHIOPIAN+SERENADERS
+Serenaders&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1922&proxtext=%22ethio
pian+serenaders%22&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1.
Nimako, Kwame, and Glenn Frank Walter Willemsen. The Dutch Atlantic: Slavery, Abolition
and Emancipation. London; New York, NY: Pluto Press, 2011.
“Old Songs: ANGELINE THE BAKER.” Accessed March 6, 2013.
http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-AngelineBaker.html.
Oostindie, Gerrit Jan. “Slavernij, Canon En Trauma.” Universiteit Leiden, 2007.
104
Pickering, Michael. Blackface Minstrelsy in Britain. Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series.
Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.
Popular Culture in American History. Blackwell Readers in American Social and Cultural
History 1. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Praamstra, Olfert Johannes. “De Nederlandse Letterkunde Als Wereldliteratuur.” Diss.
Universiteit Leiden, 2008.
“Race (human) -- Encyclopedia Britannica.” Accessed June 7, 2013.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488030/race.
Riewals, J.G., and J. Bakker. The Critical Reception of American Literature in the Netherlands
1824-1900. A Documentary Conspectus from Contemporary Periodicals. Amsterdam:
Rodopi B.V., 1982.
Rogin, Michael Paul. Blackface, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Hollywood Melting Pot.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Rourke, Constance. American Humor. A Study of the National Character. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,, 1953.
“Rowe’s Uncle Tom.” Accessed May 15, 2013.
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/scripts/osplgpraVt.html.
Rydell, Robert W. All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American International
Expositions, 1876-1916. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Scharp, H.J. “Koninklijk Oudheidkunde Genootschap Te Amsterdam, Jaarverslag in de
Zeventigste Algemeene Vergadering Op Maandag 21 Mei 1928” (1928).
Scott, Derek B. Sounds of the Metropolis: The Nineteenth-century Popular Music Revolution in
London, New York, Paris, and Vienna. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Sipress, Joel M. “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory by David W. Blight.”
The Wisconsin Magazine of History 85, no. 4 (Summer 2002): 57.
Slout, William L. Burnt Cork and Tambourines: A Source Book of Negro Minstrelsy. Wildside
Press LLC, 2007.
Starke, Catherina Juanita. Black Portraiture in American Fiction. Stock Characters, Archetypes,
and Individuals. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1971.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. The Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin : Presenting the Original Facts and
Documents Upon Which the Story Is Founded : Together with Corroborative Statements
Verifying the Truth of the Work. London: Clarke, Beeton, and Co., 1853.
Strausbaugh, John. Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult & Imitation in American
Popular Culture. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2006.
Sturkop, Ko. “Nathan Judels (1815-1903): Komiek, Musicus En Ondernemer.” Misjpoge.
Vereningsblad van de Nederlandse Kring Voor Joodse Genealogie 1, no. 16 (2003).
Taekema, H.S. “Een Roman Als Aanklacht: Over Uncle Tom’s Cabin En Max Havelaar.” Rode
Draad: Recht En Literatuur AA 53, no. 11 (2004).
Takaki, Ronald T. A Different Mirror: a History of Multicultural America. New York: Back Bay
Books/Little, Brown, and Co., 2008.
Tidwell, James Nathan. “Mark Twain’s Representation of Negro Speech.” American Speech 17,
no. 3 (oktober 1942): 174–176. doi:10.2307/486791.
Toll, Robert C. Blacking up. The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-Century America. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1974.
“Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Littell’s Living Age no. 35 (October 16, 1852).
105
“Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe: Chapter 20.” Accessed May 18, 2013.
http://www.online-literature.com/stowe/uncletom/20/.
Vos, H. de. Geschiedenis van Het Socialisme in Nederland in Het Kader van Zijn Tijd. Baarn:
Het Wereldvenster, 1976.
Wat wil de Maatschappij: Tot nut van den Javaan? Arnhem: DAThieme, 1867.
Weerden, van, J.S. “Marten Douwes Teenstra in Suriname, 1828-1834. Een Groninger Pionier in
de West.” KITLV/ Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies
(1968). www.kitlv-journals.nl/index.php/nwig/article/viewFile/5282/6049.
Western Civilization: Beyond Boundaries. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008.
Wittke, Carl Frederick. Tambo and Bones: a History of the American Minstrel Stage. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1968.
Wolbers, J. De Slavernij in Suriname, of Dezelfde Gruwelen Der Slavernij, Die in de
“Negerhut” Geschetst Zijn, Bestaan Ook in Onze West-Indische Koloniën! (ten
Voordeele van de Emancipatie Der Slaven). Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1853.
Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Commemorative ed. Oxford ; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Figures
“Advertentie,” Java-Bode, September 22, 1855.
“Advertentie,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche courant: staats-, handels, nieuws- en advertentieblad,
August 13, 1847.
“Advertentie,” Utrechtsche provincial en stads-courant: algemeen advertentieblad, July 21,
1847.
“Africans in America/Part 3/Jim Crow Close-up,” accessed May 28, 2013,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h489b.html.
“Atlas Van Stolk - Collectie: Atjeh’s Kraton Marsch,” accessed June 9, 2013,
http://collectie.atlasvanstolk.nl/collectie/data_nl.asp?display=1&q0=81557&search=Reco
rd.
“National Portrait Gallery - Portrait - NPG D7311; Ira Frederick Aldridge,” accessed June 7,
2013, http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw41254/Ira-Frederick-
Aldridge.
460px-Zip_Coon,_1834.jpg (JPEG-afbeelding, 460x599 Pixels), accessed June 7, 2013,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Zip_Coon%2C_1834.jpg/4
60px-Zip_Coon%2C_1834.jpg.
106
Newspapers
Algemeen Handelsblad
Arnhemsche courant
Dagblad van Zuidholland en ’s Gravenhage
De Amsterdammer: Dagblad Voor Nederland
De Constitutioneel: nieuwe ’s-Gravenhaagsche courant
De grondwet
De locomotief: Samarangsch handels- en advertentie-blad
De tijd: dagblad voor Nederland
Groninger courant
Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indië
Het nieuws van den dag: kleine courant
Het volk: dagblad voor de arbeiderspartij
Java-bode: nieuws, handels- en advertentieblad voor Nederlandsch-Indie
Leeuwarder courant
Leydse courant
Middelburgsche courant
Nederlandse Staatscourant
Nieuw-Amsterdamsch handelsblad- en effectenblad
Nieuw Rotterdamschae courant: staats-, handels-, nieuws- en advertentieblad
Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant
Nieuwsblad van Friesland: Hepkema’s courant
Opregte Haarlemsche Courant
Provinciale Drentsche en Asser courant
Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche courant: staats-, handels-, nieuws- en advertentieblad
Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad
Rotterdamsche courant
Soerabaijasch handelsblad
Surinaamsche courant en Gouvertnements advertentie blad
Utrechtsch provinciaal en stedelijk dagblad
Utrechtse provinciale en stads-courant; algemeen advertentie-blad
Vlissingsche courant
The New York Times