Dutch colonialism in Indonesia is a paradox; it is at once very sophisticated and extraordinarily brutal, just as a modern nation-state must be. As the movie Max Havelaar demonstrates, Dutch colonialism in Indonesia was not brutal because of the Dutch themselves but due to their colonial policies. Kartini’s letters speak of individual stories of suffering and triumph. In the novel, Feenberg presents the Dutch colonial administration as systematic cruelty by officials trained to administer such cruelty.
The view of Feenberg and Cote differ from the aspect of the conduct of colonial officials, racism, and economic exploitation in that they are not official Dutch versions of what is going on in the colony but of the natives, whereas their views are similar in the same aspects since both authors are aware of the brutalities of Dutch colonialism yet they present them in a more sympathetic light.
The two views of Dutch colonialism differ in their arguments and the aspects of the conduct of colonial officials. Feenberg’s viewpoint is towards indigenous people, while Kartini’s expressed her opinion as a colonial official. In the novel, Feenberg views colonialism as a monolithic force that is neither workable nor desirable, while Cote condemns the racism of colonialism. Feenberg mentioned that European colonizers looked down on the Javanese people. Coté ‘s view of colonialism in the letter written by Kartini is that racism was not only about race but also the difference between rich and poor colonists or indigenous peoples. Coté explained that many rich, educated European colonizers looked down on indigenous peoples because they were equally ignorant of their culture as native people (Coté 120).
In addition, because the native people were poor and uneducated, they were not treated fairly and justly by European colonizers (Peter). The difference was that racism was not only about race but also the difference between rich and poor colonists or indigenous peoples. Thus, the two views of Dutch colonialism differed in their arguments because Feenberg attacked all colonial rule while Coté only condemned the inequality and oppression of European colonialism.
Another aspect that Feenberg’s s novel and the letters written by Kartini differ in is the aspect of racism. In the novel, Feenberg described racism as a white people’s problem, whereas Kartini argued that it was a problem of the Dutch colonialist race. Kartini touches on racism more than once during her letter by stating, “What do you think your mother would do if I came to her house and told her that she is not allowed to marry a Chinese? A Negro? An Indian?” (Coté 134).
In the letter written by Kartini, they repeatedly used the phrase “the Dutch race,” which referred to a racist notion of an exclusive and superior Dutch primitive race. For Feenberg, racism is a white people’s problem “If the government fails in its duty to right wrong and take action against injustice, then it becomes a government full of deception, hypocrisy…and bad faith. Thus, we should not allow ourselves to be deceived by these officials who treat us like cattle (Feenberg 822). Therefore, racism differs between the two authors since Feenberg’s novel is more direct and to the point, while Kartini’s letters are more indirect and subtle.
The other aspect that Feenberg’s s novel and letters written by Kartini differ from is the aspect of economic exploitation. Feenberg described the economic exploitation in the book Mavelaar mentioned that his job as a clerk was underpaid, and even so, he was paid less than Indian workmen (Feenberg 830). In contrast, Cote wrote that indigenous peoples were exploited because they were required to pay a higher tax than European colonizers paid them ( Cote 100).
Cote also argued that they suffered from the inconsistency of colonial rule, which constantly changed. European colonial officials required indigenous culture to fit into their way of life and granted indigenous peoples little rights to change their traditional cultures. For example, Cote about the prohibition of wearing sarongs by Europeans, forcing indigenous peoples to wear European clothing unsuitable for them. Therefore, the aspect of economic exploitation differs in that indigenous peoples were exploited in Indonesia by paying high taxes, while the Dutch colonists were exploited when they had to pay those workers that they considered less worthy.
The aspect of racism, as described in both views, was very similar. In both works of literature, racism functions very hierarchically. According to the novel and Kartini’sletters, racial hierarchy w as functioned that the Dutch colonizers always put themselves into the top category from other European colonizers or indigenous peoples. In a letter written by Kartini, Cote stated that European colonizers always put themselves into the top category of other European colonizers or indigenous peoples. Feenberg mentioned in the novel that he did not like the poor white peasants and servants, who were similar to him in all aspects (Cote 120). Therefore, Feenberg and Cote both view the conduct of colonial officials as negative since the colonial officials always put themselves into the top category of other European colonizers or indigenous peoples.
The economic exploitation of Dutch colonial rule, as described in both pieces of literature, is similar. Feenberg’s novel and Kartini’s letter are similar in that indigenous people are economically exploited. In the novel, Max Havelaar mentioned that he did not like the poor white peasants whose job was underpaid and, worst of all, paid less than Indian workmen who worked for the Dutch colonial officials(Max Havelaar 29:45–32:37 ).
The Dutch colonialists found a strong similarity: both oppressed the indigenous people economically(Peter). According to Kartini, many indigenous people earned little money by selling their products but lost a lot because of the high tax imposed by European colonizers (Cote 150). Therefore, the indigenous people were exploited economically, irrespective of the amount of money they made or the job they did.
The aspect of racism, as described in both pieces of literature, has some similarities in that division and distinction are made between colonizer and colonized. Feenberg’s s novel and Kartini’s letters are similar in the aspect of racism in that division and distinction are made between colonizer and colonized. Feenberg mentions that the Dutch viewed Javanese people as “sensual” and “vulgar.” In letters written by Kartini, because the native people were poor and uneducated, they were not treated fairly and justly by European colonizers. For example, “The Dutch race is not superior. Neither is the Javanese. Neither are the Chinese… The Indian is a creature of illusion; he thinks himself civilized, and yet he continues to be aboriginal” (Coté 135). Therefore, They both have been seen as stereotyped for being racist because they view Indians as inferior to Europeans.
In conclusion, Feenberg’s s novel and Kartini’s letters view the aspects of colonial officials’ conduct, racism, and economic exploitation similarly. Both authors view the Dutch colonial system established in Indonesia through colonization. Native people were exploited economically because they were required to pay a high tax which was more than what European colonizers paid them. They were also exploited socially, which means they were forced to adapt to European culture rather than their own, which surrounded their own traditional culture.
On the other hand, Feenberg’s s novel and the letters written by Kartini both views from the aspect of the conduct of colonial officials, racism, and economic exploitation differ in that Feenberg’s novel is about Dutch colonial rule in the Netherlands, while the letter written by Kartini and Joost Cote is about the exploitation of Indonesian people by Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia.
Works Cited
Coté, Joost. On feminism and nationalism: Kartinis letters to Stella Zeehandelaar 1899-1903. Clayton, Vic, Monash Asia Institute, 200, p.1-184.
Feenberg, Anne-Marie. “” Max Havelaar”: An Anti-Imperialist Novel.” MLN . 1997, volume112, p. 817-835.
Max Havelaar. Directed by Fons Rademakers, performances by Peter Feber, P.T. Mondial Motion Pictures and Fons Rademakers Productie B.V., 1976.
Peter; Stow Von Sivers (George B.; Desnoyers, Charles). Patterns of World History: Volume One: To 1600 with Sources. Oxford University Press, 2014.