A Revieuw of Bronbeek Museum from Rini

Bronbeek Museum

Topics Depicted in the Museum:

The museum depicted a history of Dutch colonial presence in Southeast Asia, specifically during their decolonization in Netherlands East Indies. It exhibited not only the impact of decolonization from the perspective of Dutch but also from the point of view of the Indo Dutch and Indonesian community concerning the military action during the Dutch colonial power. The main focus of the museum is on the history of the Royal Dutch East Indies Army (KNIL) and his opponents. As a part of Ministry of Defense, the museum aims to increase knowledge and awareness of the Dutch colonial past which could raise interest from public.

The museum is also a military nursing home for fifty Dutch veterans who have served the Dutch army for minimum of five years. It was first opened in 1863 and until now there have been several renovations made for the care of these veterans. The current veterans who live there range from 65 to 90 years old.

What is included and what is left out?

The collections of the museum consist of (captured) weapons, insignias, costumes, portraits and memorabilia of the heroes that gave up their lives for king and country. The museum is presented on the basis of chronological sequence which depicts of a series of colonialism period in the Netherlands East Indies and uses little interpretation of facts (descriptions) in every item displayed. The rooms are exhibited on the basis of uniting military history and civil remembrances.

The idea of uniting military history and civil remembrance is a challenge that needs to be faced by the museum since it can create confrontation and disagreement especially on what should be exhibited and what should not be exhibited, for example, the exhibition of Japanese War which depicts terror, companionship, sorrow, and heroism of the people. Many war veterans do not agree to put the Japanese flag in this room because it gives them trauma and reminds them of the hardship they had during the war. Although recently, the flag is displayed in this room, the controversy remains exists until now.

Moreover, the idea of putting together the perspective of Dutch, Indonesian and Dutch Indies perspective together in one room sometimes creates confusion. The room of revolution shows chaotic period where the Dutch is exhibited both as the victim and perpetrators.  Although the idea is amazing but it is not really presenting the Indonesians perspective. We can see that Westerling had executed hundreds of people in Sulawesi but it is depicted only in one picture of Westerling and a short description that contains numbers. It does not exhibit the visualization of violence (such as pictures of situation after the execution). So visitors do not get the feeling of the notorious action that he had during this period.

In the room where Java and Atjeh war is exhibited, visitors are displayed with various military weapons that were used during these periods. According to the museum guide, these weapons represent the perspective of war from both Netherlands and Indonesians. However, it looks like in this room the Dutch want to show a part of their empire power and they want to show how they succeeded in overcoming the biggest assaults in their empire that occurred at that time. The weapons which were mostly captured by the Dutch are only supporting details of their power. The display of areas’s development which had been conquered by the Colonial government obviously shows their pride on how big the power they had during these periods.

Therefore, the perspective of Indonesians and visualization on violence that occurred in the events displayed are the things that are left out. 

General Comments

The museum is explicitly offering multiple perspectives, most explicit on the Aceh and the Java war. First, the Aceh and Java war is presented without using historical Javanese and Acehnese sources, nor letting Indonesian historians speak, it is assumed that the museum can objectively represent all sides. As it is presented as uncontested history this history is placed firmly in the past.  Second, a nuanced view of victims and perpetrators is given; we find stories of the Dutch both as victims and as perpetrators in one of the exhibition rooms, both in the memories as well as in the chronological history given in the center. Third, when victims of colonialism are discussed, this is done in the abstract: the demographic chart presented in the room where the victims of the colonial wars are presented here; there are no personal stories, nor is the oppression or violence visualized. 

In the room Japanese War we do find a clearly identifiable enemy. There are personal stories and items, open space and monument. The room is clearly about the memory of (Indo) Dutch victims. There are only two Indonesian voices to be heard. And although many more Romushas died on the Paku Baru railway, their stories are untold in this room. (Indo) Dutch victimhood can be seen too in the room where the difficult process of arriving in and adapting to the Netherlands is discussed.  Without denying their suffering or their right of remembrance, the uniting of their memories with the history of colonization makes that one leaves the exhibition with the feeling the (Indo) Dutch were the foremost victims.  

To conclude, the museum mostly depicts the perspective of Dutch and (indo) Dutch during the colonial period. The Indonesians’ perspective is used as supporting details only. The museum works on the basis of historical objective. Nevertheless, the Dutch nuances are clearly seen in every exhibition room. However, despite all of these, the museum has succeeded in establishing the influential remembrance which is highly important to commemorate the history of two nations which used to be united under the umbrella of colonialism.