Let your ballot speak for more colour than just red

Written by Eva Visser

In 2019, the Netherlands celebrated the 100th anniversary of universal suffrage, the right to vote for all. At the time, the Groninger Museum illustrated the accompanying struggle through an exhibition; from historical media, the activists, to today's feminism. And so, as a visitor, I too found myself among the feminist slogans, ending up at the guestbook. Where, upon opening it, among all the ticklish sentences, someone rightly commented: “An exhibition of white feminism. Do better.” While cycling back, I thought about it. Figures with a prominent role in the fight for equal rights, especially Groningen's Aletta Jacobs, still enjoy prestige in the city. But did they really fight for everyone?

The right to higher education, sexual freedom, the right to vote and free thinking have been the four pillars of Aletta Jacobs’ life. On top of that, as the first female student at the University of Groningen and also the first female doctor in the Netherlands, she caused quite a stir. In current times, this stir has translated into recognition; think of the Aletta Jacobs Hall, Jacobs' bust for the Harmonie building and the Aletta Jacobs Prize. But, here the focus is mainly on Jacobs' intervention in Dutch society. This while Jacobs also involved herself in global advocacy for progression. For instance, together with the president of the World Confederation for Women's Suffrage, American Carrie Chapman Catt, she made a world trip between 1911 and 1912 to promote equal rights worldwide. The trip took place on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. 

Jacobs reported her findings through letters, later published as a collected work and in the Telegraaf. So what did the Groningen native, outside Europe for the first time, make of the colonial world she encountered? The self-assurance and, above all, the intransigence that Aletta so spewed forward at home takes on a whole new meaning in the light of these letters. Jacobs, for instance, argues for strengthening the position of women in occupied territories, especially Indonesia and South Africa, but in her appeal she only shows solidarity with white women. There is no mention whatsoever of attempts to include women of colour. Indeed, her travelogues praise Dutch oppression, based on the view that the natives can only fully develop through Dutch interference. As this passage shows: ‘From a people who are so civilised, moral and high-minded by themselves, some good can grow with good leadership. However, it's on that leadership that it comes down.’ In addition, her letters echo a colonial voice that belittles from racism when she visits South Africa. For example, Jacobs repeatedly describes South Africa's black population as ‘little children’ and describes her companion's desire to appropriate a child: “Mrs Catt has already expressed her wish to receive such a small ni____ gift from us on her birthday, but it should not be any bigger than that.” Her words, aside from their derogatory expression, imply a distinction in intellect between her own elitist identity and the immature self-independent other. 

These passages are just the tip of the iceberg; the letters are full of statements steeped in racism and colonial tone. Perhaps some of Jacob's views can be attributed to the zeitgeist. Only, to what extent can zeitgeist be an excuse for an individual who actively interfered with free thinking and actually sought ways to step outside the zeitgeist? Whereas Aletta did not want to dedicate her vision regarding feminism to a more inclusive perspective, other feminist activists at the time did. Yes, Aletta made a great contribution to emancipation of white women in a society that structurally excluded them. But at the time, she also smeared feminism and freethinking with an unadulterated colonial and racist outlook and lifestyle. 

Which raises the following questions. To what extent does a racist past weigh in in pricing today's acquired rights? As a society, we do not look over racism, but around it. After all, we are aware of it, but prefer to avoid active confrontation. It is a privilege to think about it critically rather than experience it directly. As a society, let's dwell on that longer. That starts with yourself, use your right and choose to look outside the box. And as far as I am concerned, by no means the next exhibition (and the one after that too) of the Groninger Museum is one in the sign and honour of people of colour.