Talk:Amboyna massacre

Amboyna massacre
--Ereunetes (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This is more in the nature of a request for help in starting a discussion on the merits of the page. I do not want to wildly start editing a page that is quite serviceable in itself, but could benefit from a shift in focus, at least not without consulting the people previously involved in authoring the page.

First of all, the page (though treating of an in itself obscure historical incident) has become suddenly topical because of the link with the "waterboarding" controversy. This is quite correct (as the incident involved the use of a form of waterboarding - this is one of the few facts that is not in dispute - and all parties considered this "torture" at the time) but this aspect is not mentioned in the article itself.(On reflection I need to clarify this: the *fact* of the waterboarding is mentioned, but not the sudden topicality. Of course we cannot be responsible for everything wikipedia does, but it is deplorable that everybody who gets to this page via the link from "waterboarding in colonial times" on the "waterboarding" page gets entirely the wrong impression. Waterboarding was not invented by the Dutch in Indonesia :-) I think it would advisable to add a discussion of this aspect, now that external events have put the spotlight on it, but in a *sensitive* way. This brings me to my main concern with the article in its current form. The "Amboyna Massacre" was not just a historical event, but acquired in the course of the following decades a quite important symbolical and emotive content for especially the English in their growing rivalry with the Dutch. The words "Amboyna Massacre" can be seen on a par with "Black Hole of Calcutta" or "The Alamo" as a rallying cry for the English in the first through third Anglo-Dutch wars (where every time the matter was dragged up as a casus belli). This because of the deft way in which the English East India Company used its version of events to conduct a propaganda war against its Dutch competitor. Of course, there was a Dutch version of events also and this led to a quite interesting "war of pamflets" about the matter around those Anglo Dutch conflicts. This is only cursorily touched upon in the article, but I think it should be one of the main aspects to be reviewed: the English version is a species of "black legend." Unfortunately, this highly-charged English version was rather uncritically recited in the Milton book that is cited as a main reference and I suspect it also formed the basis for the current article (though somewhat mitigated by the Dutch sources referenced). However, a more balanced view arises if one consults the diplomatic papers on both sides in a critical way (I have added two such collections as references to the article; unfortunately they don't cover overlapping periods). I therefore think the article would benefit if it distinguished between the facts that are not in dispute, and the ones that were hotly disputed. (For instance: the article now says "The judges however took their time" suggesting that the Dutch were dragging their feet, while actually the English held up the case by refusing to produce their witnesses for cross-examination. Once the witnesses were finally questioned before the special court the trial was speedily concluded, be it not with the verdict the English had peremptorily demanded). Though obviously the incident bears upon Indonesian history (as the events unfolded on what is now Indonesian territory) I think it actually is only tangentially related as it primarily concerned the European powers involved, and their citizens (the Japanese victims were no more than innocent bystanders; the Japanese government appears not to have taken umbrage at their judicial murder at the time). I therefore wonder if the article should be primarily refereed by the Indonesia project; it would seem to fit in better with a more European-centred project. (European diplomatic history?) In sum, I think the article would benefit from an overhaul and a change in tenor. But I would not presume to undertake such a possibly major editing effort without first putting this up for discussion. --Ereunetes (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ==Criticisms==To get the discussion started, let me point out a number of criticisms of the article.

Subheading "The massacre" could be more neutral. In any case it was not a "massacre" but at most a "judicial murder". Suggestion: subheading "the incident". Paragraph about the Treaty of Defence: the important point of the treaty was not that it parceled out the spice trade, but that the two companies were henceforth supposed to cooperate peacefully (among other things, in opening the China market). As a consequence, the factors of both companies could now share trading posts, though each company held on to its own forts. The attack of the English on what was to become Batavia predates the Treaty and was therefore not relevant for the incident. However, in the Dutch apologia (State Papers, No. 537I) incidents with the Sultan of Ternate, of which Van Speult suspected the English to be the instigators, were cited to explain his paranoia. If the English factors had not shared fort Victoria, the ensuing incident probably would not have happened. It is incorrect that the VOC considered itself not to be bound by the Treaty of Defence. On the contrary, against the many complaints of the EIC the VOC countered with its own complaints, based on the treaty. In any case, the treaty was actually concluded by the two companies, under the auspices of their national principals. In the paragraph "Reaction": Actually, four more Englishmen were initially convicted, but later pardoned (as were two of the Japanese convicts). In addition, four English factors of outlying islands (who had alibis) were acquitted. It is those eight English survivors that complained to the Council of Defence in Batavia (which was long since again in Dutch hands and also housed the English factors) (S.P. 499I) The pamflet that was translated by John Winge was actually suppressed at the demand of the English ambassador Carleton as a "libel", because it contradicted the English version of events and favorably compared the Dutch torture practices with the English technique of "peine forte et dure". The Dutch government did not "claim" to be investigating the matter at the time, but first proposed to send a joint English-Dutch commission to the Indies (and when the English rejected this) charged a judicial commission with the investigation. (The English would have preferred summary execution of the judges). In any case, the anonymous pamflet cited was just a sideshow. More important is the official English account of the affair (S.P. 499I) that contains the accusations of the gruesome tortures etc., and the official Remonstrance of the VOC in answer to that. I suggest the whole Winge-paper be dropped in favor of these two papers. The reason for the drawing out of the trial of the Ambon judges was that England refused to produce the English witnesses for cross-examination. Only in 1630, with the embassy of Sir Henry Vane the Elder, were the witnesses finally brought over to Holland and examined, but under very stringent conditions. The case certainly was used by Cromwell as a pretext for starting the first Anglo-Dutch war, and art. 27 of the peace treaty required the "still living" judges to be punished (none were still alive). However, the award of 3615 pounds sterling was not written into the treaty but given by arbiters convened on the basis of the treaty. (At the same time the two companies exchanged huge claims for compensation against each other and the arbiters awarded the EIC the balance of these claims at 85,000 pounds). The affair formed a pretext for the second and third Dutch wars also. Dryden wrote his play in 1673 as a propaganda piece at the instigation of one of the architects of the secret Treaty of Dover, to whom it is dedicated, to stir up resentment. The reason why nobody took up the case of the Japanese victims was that they were in the employ of the Dutch and therefore "fair game." The case indeed revolved around the question of (im)proper jurisdiction of the Ambon court. This aspect should receive far more emphasis than it now gets. The affair is indeed given as the reason for the withdrawal of the EIC from the Indies. However, I do not see why the the fact that Ambon changed hands several times during the Napoleonic wars deserves mention. I realize that Milton uses this as the culmination of his book: "Justice at last". But was the case then about who should "own" Ambon? "Justice" at the expense of the Amboinese? I would drop this. I hope this is a useful start.--24.20.88.85 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is inappropriate at this point in time. I initiated the above request for a review of the previous version of the article in February. As there was no reaction by the Indonesia workgroup, I went ahead and implemented my criticisms by rewriting the article, which resulted in essence in the current version of the article. So the above remarks are no longer relevant, at least for the current article version. Putting these remarks at this time in the discussion page of the current article will just cause confusion.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reael paragraph muddies waters
I think the addition of the paragraph on governor-general Laurens Reael (taken verbatim from the wikipedia article on Reael; hence it is a duplication) muddies the waters and is not an improvement of the article. It is true that Reael had important policy differences with VOC headquarters back in the Netherlands, but those concerned mainly the treatment of the natives and far less the conflict with the EIC competitor (Reael did fight the EIC after all, as stated in the wikipedia article on Reael). The reference to Colenbrander only concerns a quote in which he protests the treatment of natives, and is therefore not relevant for the conflict with the EIC (as will be clear from the external link that is also supplied). However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Reael protested the VOC policy vis a vis the EIC in the years preceding the Treaty of Defense of 1619, what would be the relevance? We know that both sides were at daggers drawn and that the Treaty of Defense was supposed to ameliorate that situation. By that time Reael had left the scene, however (he resigned in 1617 and was just managing the store till his successor arrived). Of course, Reael's opposition to the treatment of the native population was important and may deserve its own wikipedia article (besides the article on Reael himself), but the treatment of the native population was not relevant in the Amboyna Massacre. That incident solely concerned the treatment of the EIC employees (nobody cared about the Japanese mercenaries, who were VOC employees, and no natives were harmed).

So the paragraph about Reael just breaks up the narrative (literally) about the things that are relevant and provides a red herring. The point of the story is that the Treaty of Defense was supposed to "cool down" the open warfare between the two companies by imposing a market-sharing arrangement and opening up the trading posts of the companies to merchants of the other side. In the aftermath of the incident the conflict was mostly about the interpretation of the Treaty.

If Reael should be mentioned at all (and I see no real reason why) it would suffice to include a short footnote, as the whole paragraph is taken from the Reael-article, that is already referenced by a wikilink.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Social
During which king he came to India 157.51.154.143 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extent of torture whitewash
Upon comparison with the Japanese Wiki page, the current edit has blatant whitewash WP:POV issues.

It reads as if water torture was the only means used, and a lot of people confessed of without torture. But flames under the Englishmen's feet is seen in the image used, and several of those interrogated had their "limbs blown off with gunpowder".

Obviously someone faced with torture of this scope might be persuaded to volunteer information in hopes of avoiding it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned in Daniel Defoe's Captain Singleton
It's also implicitely referred to in Daniel Defoe's Captain Singleton (published in 1720, set in the middle of the 17th century)

"Between these islands we met with a Dutch junk, or vessel, going to Amboyna: we took her without much trouble, and I had much ado to prevent our men murdering all the men, as soon as they heard them say they belonged to Amboyna: the reasons I suppose any one will guess."

https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6422/pg6422-images.html 2001:1A81:527F:9D00:D06A:556B:C9DE:F1B (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)