Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis - Volume 124, Issue 3, 2011

The Roman general Germanicus (15 BCE-19 CE) gained unprecedented popularity during his lifetime. However, in dealing with the mutiny of the Rhine armies in 14 CE he did not show the determination which his popularity might lead us to expect. His campaigns against a German alliance led by Arminius can hardly be described as successful, and never resulted in the permanent subjection of Germany. Germanicus took several unnecessary risks which caused losses to the Roman treasury and military. This interpretation of Germanicus’ German command matches the current view that Tacitus does not present Germanicus as a glorious figure, but depicts his so-called hero often in a negative light. Nonetheless, according to Tacitus, the recall of Germanicus in 16 CE was the consequence of Tiberius’ fear of his nephew’s popularity and his own wish not to pursue a policy of expansion. Although the ending of Germanicus’ command, memorialized after his death in 19 CE in several monuments in honour of the deceased (as summarised in the Tabula Siarensis), meant the abrupt end of Roman campaigning in Germany, it is argued here that the recall of Germanicus should be considered a sensible measure, dictated by a pragmatic outlook on foreign affairs.

Until now there have been few studies on cultural policy in Belgium during the nineteenth century. This can be attributed to a number of persistent misconceptions about this period, not least the misconception that the interest of central government in matters of culture began only in the twentieth century. But in fact a closer look at the budgets of the central government at the end of the nineteenth century shows us that large sums were invested in several areas of culture. This article tries to uncover why politicians thought it important to invest in cultural matters, even in times of economic depression. It seems the majority among them considered a flourishing cultural life to be an indispensible condition for economic renewal, as the best and maybe only way to escape the vicious circle of economic depression. Furthermore, culture was an important theme in the electoral battles in the cities, especially in Brussels, where elections were often won or lost on this issue. Our ignorance of the politics of this period is shown by the fact that the most important speakers in these debates, such as the independent Brussels representative Ernest Slingeneyer, are hardly know to us.

During the South African War (1899-1902) the public in the Netherlands strongly supported the Boer republics in their fight against the British. This enthusiasm was based on feelings of racial and cultural kinship – the so-called ideal of stamverwantschap. At first sight it appears that this ideology disappeared after 1902 and that the gap between the people of the Netherlands and the Afrikaners grew over the course of the twentieth century, culminating in widespread protests against apartheid after the Second World War. This article argues that positive interaction between Dutchmen and Afrikaners continued longer than is often assumed. During the course of the twentieth century several initiatives were taken to transfer objects from the Netherlands to South Africa to help strengthen Afrikaner identity, which led to the creation of places of memory that still exist. Dutch historians lost sight of this during the cultural boycotts of the 1970s and 1980s. But after the end of apartheid they have become accessible again, providing a different perspective on this history. By analysing three places of memory I show that certain groups of Dutchmen have contributed to the heroic interpretation of Afrikaner history which legitimised white-minority rule.

The arrival of the black descendants of enslaved people from the Dutch colonies brought an increase in research into the history of slavery. But most of these studies fail to describe the period of Apprenticeship in Suriname - a period of enforced labour for agricultural export. Since there is no systematic historiography on the writing of the history of slavery, we have little insight into why historians failed in this way. This article explores how the history of slavery was presented in newspaper articles between 1997 and 2005 (the time of social debate on the demands of the blacks) and why the period of Apprenticeship was left out. It concludes that at least two historians presented personal views on the blacks’ demands as if these were historical facts, and thus used history as a means to undermine those demands. Knowledge of ongoing exploitation after emancipation would probably have made the demands seem more legitimate.

Owing to the Intangible Heritage Convention of UNESCO, the concept of intangible heritage has come to the forefront of the international cultural debate on heritage and identity. It coincides with a more general awareness of the so-called softer sides of heritage, with more attention to identity processes, meaning, and experience, sometimes labeled ‘the emotional turn’. UNESCO has adopted a bottom-up approach. Local communities play a central role in the Convention, which is a way of democratizing heritage. Recent publications show that intangible heritage also has significant political dimensions. Some even speak of intangible heritage as a political minefield. Intangible heritage is instrumentalised for political benefit or as a way of gaining public acclaim. The books reviewed present some striking examples. Until now historians have not been involved in these discussions. But because of their historical expertise and their critical antennae for the role of politics in history, they can help to deconstruct the politics of intangible heritage.

Heritage education has recently become a distinct type of teaching and learning. Heritage organizations argue that monuments, relics, and other remains offer young people a sensory experience and stimulate emotional engagement with the past. This approach, however, seems contrary to the goals of history teaching in the Netherlands, which requires the application of historical thinking. In this article we first assess the Dutch institutional contexts of history teaching and heritage education. Next we reflect on the significance of historical distance and proximity in both types of education. For this purpose we have developed an analytical framework comprising five elements: time, person, imagination, place, and engagement.