Powerful silences in postcolonial memory activism: the pros and cons of activist silence

This presentation is based on my ongoing research of the Netherlands-based activist group De Grauwe Eeuw, specifically their actions in 2016-2018. In these years, the group frequently made the Dutch news by spray-painting slogans such as “genocide” and “stop colonial glorification” on colonial monuments, including the statue of Jan Pieterszoon Coen, who was the Governor-General of the Dutch East India Company in 1617-1623. As such, their activism concerns what I call postcolonial memory: the discussions in postcolonial societies such as The Netherlands about how the colonial past should be remembered.

However, despite their outspoken presence in public space, the activists are characteristically silent in the mainstream media. They refuse all participation in interviews with national newspapers or television channels, claiming that speaking to these established discourses is like not speaking at all. They argue that such coverage would result in the silencing of their political voice, because it would be filtered through the media’s predetermined position with regard to Dutch postcolonial memory. Paradoxically, by refusing to speak to the mainstream media, De Grauwe Eeuw thus protect its voice from being silenced.

However, their active use of silence is not without its particular risks: the Dutch media have criminalized these activists, to large extent on the basis of their refusal to speak out about their actions publicly. Therefore, through my exploration of this case, I will discuss both the opportunities and the risks that are inherent in using silence as a strategy of postcolonial memory activism.