Jump to content

Talk:1740 Batavia massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 19:59, 17 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured article1740 Batavia massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 4, 2012.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 1, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 20, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 6, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 3, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that among those killed in the 1740 Batavia massacre were 500 prisoners and hospital patients?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 22, 2013, October 22, 2015, October 22, 2021, October 22, 2022, and October 9, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Possible sources for expansion

Is by WW Dharmowijono (2009) just like
  • Dharmowijono, W.W. (2009). Van koelies, klontongs en kapiteins : het beeld van de Chinezen in Indisch-Nederlands literair proza 1880-1950 (Doctorate in Humanities thesis) (in Dutch). Universiteit van Amsterdaam. Retrieved 1 December 2011. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Dutch sources

  • De Chinezenmoord van 1740. . Th. Vermeiden, De Chineezen te Batavia en de troebelen van 1740. Leidse diss. Drukkerij Eduard IJdo, Leiden 1938. [1]
  • Stukken betreffende de Chinezen-moord te Batavia in 1740 en het arrest van de raden Van Imhoff, De Haze en Van Schinne. (In the National Archives.)
  • J. K. J. de Jonge, De opkomst van het Nederlandsch gezag in Oost-Indië: verzameling van onuitgegeven stukken uit het oud-koloniaal archief, verschenen in dertien delen tussen 1862 en 1888.
  • Het vervloekt en schelms verraadt' : beeldvorming en schuld in de berichtgeving over de Chinezenmoord van 1740 in Batavia / Suze Zijlstra [2]
  • The History of Java by T.S. Raffles

Taksen (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've included information from the first source and The History of Java. Don't have any idea how to access any of the others (I assume you'd have to show up in person, in which case I'm out of luck). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Chinezenmoord really means "murder of Chinese".
  • "Because of unrest in the Chinese population": a quick note (half a sentence, no more) on the reason for that unrest would be helpful ("because of years of racial repression"; "after suffering through another government-inflicted typhoid epidemic"; "caused by a year-long shortage of oliebollen")
  • Count how many sentences and clauses start with "this"
  • "one of the most important events in 18th century [Dutch] colonialism"...hmm, yes, but markant means characteristic, even odd, more than important. The function of markant is to mark (there's the etymology) something as noteworthy. Maybe "prominent" is a good translation; my Prisma dictionary has "striking, outstanding"--I would go with "striking". Drmies (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, note 15, the Van Hoevell quote, that should really read "qtd. in". Of course, that may not be easy with your citation format, and there are two notes 15, so to speak; they'd have to be split. All this would be solved if you had a copy of Batavia in 1740... You know, if I were still home, I'd get on my bike: I used to live around the corner of the Tropenmuseum. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I just went through the article and did some copyediting. Don't hesitate to revert me if you aren't happy about any of the changes (particularly with the commas). I think this is a great article, well researched and well written. (I haven't looked at the references). My only comments are: Note that I added the phrase "late 20th-century" to the article, I checked online and that is sometimes hyphenated differently (or not at all). Be careful about consistency with commas, like if you're writing "In 1740 they died" vs "In 1740, they died". Also, maybe add a brief summary (using bullets maybe) to the result field of the infobox? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 41 fixed. I don't see any Van Hoevells, although I did fix a Van Imhoff. It should preferably be British English since that is the sort mostly taught in schools in Indonesia... although its common to mix the two here as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current article refers to Chinese sugar mill workers as "using custom-made weapons to loot and burn mills." Unless these weapons were designed for the purpose of looting and burning mills, it seems likely to this reader that the writers were reaching for the word 'improvised' but failed to grasp it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from me

  • Hello Crisco, I improved quite an important year, and added a few details on his trial, but there are a few more details which should be mentioneld here.
  • On October 10th Valckenier and Van Imhoff and their factions disagreed on what to do. Valckenier proposed to kill all the Chinese, Van Imhoff only those Chinese that had weapons. Later on Van Imhoff tried to blame Valckenier for everything that happened.
  • Last, your Johannes Theodorus Vermeulen is my Vermeiden, Th. (1938) Then I did not check on his name. Taksen (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • THanks a lot. As I have noted elsewhere, I do not read Dutch (most of the Dutch sources I used were tedious "type-translate-repeats" with GTranslate. The information on Valckenier and Van Imhoff may be in Van Hoevell around page 460; if it is possible could you verify it and add it? My connection has been acting up recently. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrisco, I am Dutch and live in Amsterdam. Vermeulen is here in the library. I have to find out about Van Hoevell. I did not interfere in your work untill now, because I did not study this subject, and was busy somewhere else. Comparing the Dutch and English lemma, I found some irregularities, which need to be solved. It seems so me the book by J.Th. Vermeulen and the bad relation between the two cousins Valckenier and Van Imhoff is essential. Taksen (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep patience, or I will not help you anymore. My account of the aftermath is closer to the truth than yours. I have ordered these books from the library! There IS a lot unclear, and you dont MIND?Taksen (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whole books can probably be written this topic, and it seems indeed some books already have been. It's a very small article for now, and I hope that this will change. Please don't think that you're interfering. I'm sure I speak for everyone here that we all want an article we can be proud of, so it would be wonderful if you could help, particularly in clarifying any inaccuracies and with 'new' information from Dutch texts. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helloh confucius, thank you for your support. I just found out Van Imhoff founded the Amphioen Society in 1745. (Amphioen = opium) And who were the opium smokers or eaters? Right the Chinese. I would be very surprised if there was no connection. In 1712, Engelbert Kaempfer described the situation as follows: "No commodity throughout the Indies is retailed with greater profit by the Batavians than opium, which [its] users cannot do without, nor can they come by it except it be brought by the ships of the Batavians from Bengal and Coromandel."

  • I agree with OhC; we are happy that you are helping. If possible though, could you ensure that you include references as you add information, for verifiability? If you abandon it partway through and no references have been added, then the verifiability of the article will be called into question. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crisco, also Rome and Naples were not built in one day, so again, be patient. I have never been accused of not adding enough references. I need to get into the subject, and get these books from the University Library. Unfortunenately, I don't expect if I can work through all of them before X-mas.Taksen (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience the VOC-site is very reliable. Did you ever see a website where they mention the name of the captains, the day a ship took off, arrived and made a stop in Capetown? I think you are underestimating this site. Taksen (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification needed

Late in 1740 Valckenier asked to be replaced. In February 1741 he was instructed to appoint Van Imhoff; meantime, on 6 December 1740, van Imhoff's faction had led a vote of no confidence on him at the the Council of the East Indies. On 13 January 1741 van Imhoff and two fellow councilors were arrested by command of Valckenier for insubordination and sent to the Netherlands

The above seems a little unclear in the timeline of events, particularly the instruction to appoint van Imhoff. Of course, communications the time ftame in those days was weeks/months instead of hours, but the above picture is rather confused. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hellohconfucius, Late in 1740 should be Early in 1740, according to Dutch sources. I will look for a source. I don't know what happened at the 6th of December, I did not put it there. It could be wrong and perhaps on that date Van Imhoff fell out of grace. Then the story will become clearer.Taksen (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setiono could be wrong. On the Dutch website on Valckenier the following can be read and makes more sense:

Op 6 december 1740 verscheen Valckenier, hersteld van een ziekte (waarvan de Raad gebruik had gemaakt om zich meer en meer gezag aan te matigen) op de vergadering, gevolgd door een detachement soldaten, dat zich in een kring om de Hoge Regering opstelde. Een hooglopende ruzie deed Valckenier besluiten drie leden van de Raad, Van Imhoff, Isaac van Schinne en Elias Haese, te arresteren en door de gewapende macht te doen wegvoeren.

On December 6, 1740 Valckenier, recovered from a disease, (his absence was used by the Council to get more authority) followed by a detachment of soldiers, which circled around the High Government's table. A heated argument took Valckenier to decide to arrest three members of the Council, Van Imhoff, Isaac van Schinne and Elias Haese, and were carried away by the armed forces.Taksen (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My findings

  • On your question above [3] which was "composed" by me long time ago.
  • In 1739 too much sugar and not enough coffee was sent to the Netherlands [4]
  • A very good account in German [5]
  • Van Imhoff and the other two were arrested on 6 December 1740 [6][7]
  • Take a look at the engraving here [8]
  • Looks like an accurate account, but again be careful, each auther has his own view on the chronology.[9]
  • The three gentlemen were sent to the Netherlands, each on a different ship [10]. According to this VOC-website Valckenier asked permission to leave already in 1738. But be careful, just like Wikipedia not every sentence is trustworthy.
  • Mr. Valckenier was detained in Capetown until the 12th of August [1742], when he was placed on board the outward bound ship Sara ??? [11] He arrived in November 1742.[12] This looks like the best account in my point of view!
  • Valckenier's case was settled in 1755.[13] In 1760 his son Adriaan Isaac inhereted 725.000 guilders. You can multiply this easily with 20 to get an idea how much money he received. In 1768 he was locked up in his mansion for the rest of his life, after he had tried to kill his wife and himself.
  • I don't know if the inheritance is pertinent to this article, although for his article I'm sure it will be good.
  • Van Imhoff and Valckenier were third-cousins, their great-grandmothers were sisters (J.T. Vermeulen, p. 50). Van Imhoff was a nephew of Balthasar Boreel, a Bewindhebber (manager} of the VOC, during those days.
  • Removed.
  • You might like this. It is in English [14]
  • I do like it, very much. I liked it so much I wrote an article using it and a couple other sources. BTW, do you know of any depictions of the war?

question

  • "Production rose steadily after this, but took until the 1760s to reach pre-1740 levels, after which it again diminished. The number of mills also declined. In 1710 there had been 131, but by 1750 the number had fallen to 66." Why did production diminish after the1760s, and also the number of mills? MathewTownsend (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Increased exports/decreased prices?

"Because of the decline of worldwide sugar prices that began in the 1720s caused by an increase in exports to Europe, the sugar industry in the East Indies had suffered considerably."

Why would increasing exports to Europe cause prices to decline? Higher demand usually creates higher prices. But is something missing here? Were exports to Europe now coming from the West Indies, instead of the East Indies? If so, that should be made clear because it leaves alot of questions now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Pogrom?

Who has called this event a pogrom? A pogrom is defined very differently in the article about pogroms - this seems to me to be another way of inflating terminology for antisemitic acts by extending them to all kinds of events. Please back up with sources for "pogrom" or remove - also from mainpage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returned from my vacation to come here and say the same thing. How could this even get past FA or even on the main page with errors like this? Makes me question the accuracy of the entire article. Does anyone actually fact check these things? Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the primary contributor is citing the doctoral thesis of W. W. Dharmowijono who uses the word informally twice.[15] See pages 302-303:

Waarschijnlijk komt dat omdat de regering in overeenstemming met de publieke mening de pogrom gerechtvaardigd vond, zodat het niet nodig gevonden werd daar iets tegen te doen...In het algemeen kan gezegd worden dat verschillende omstandigheden samen een toestand creëerden die leidden naar de pogrom in Batavia.

From Google translate:

Probably because the government in accordance with the public opinion the pogrom was justified, so it was not seen as something to do ... In general it can be said that different circumstances together created a situation that led to the pogrom in Batavia.

So, it appears he's referring to the massacre informally as a pogrom, and doesn't mention it further for 325 pages. We generally do not cite a doctoral thesis as the sole authoritative source for a subject and use that as the basis of an encyclopedia article, especially when the term is used in passing. Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've removed all references to a "pogrom" from the article. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere: Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India (Muslims), Nigerian Crisis 1966: Nigeria Pogrom, the organized massacre of Eastern Nigerians (Eastern Nigerians), The Gujarat pogrom: compilation of various reports (Muslims). Encyclopedia of Rape gives a general definition as well, noting the original meaning was the massacre of Jews in Russia.
Google Scholar: "Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Surat" (Muslims), "Iran's secret pogrom: The conspiracy to wipe out the Baha'is" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree that the word pogrom should not be used, I have no objections to not using it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the word was used in that way. Those sources are very good, and I would have no objection to the word being used in this article if it can be shown to have a currency wider than Dharmowijono and Setiono using it in passing. In other words, if according to the sources, this massacre is commonly referred to as a pogrom, please add it back. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As numerous sources use "pogrom" to refer to this massacre, I will reinsert it. Admittedly most of the ones I've found online are passing mentions (not only of the word pogrom, but the massacre itself). I.e.
The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia
Maritime China in Transition
Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights
Merchant in Asia
Sexual Diversity in Asia
  • You're welcome. I've avoided linking to the article on pogroms as its current scope is only regarding Jews, which would only confuse the matter if used here. I may link to Wiktionary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are good. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

Ok, so now Im totally confused over where the articles used are published in. I mean especially the two articles by A. R. T. Kemasang. In the article there stands that the 1981 article was published in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies but the ISSN is for the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, volume 19. Furhtermore, the 1982 article is said to be released in the same bulletin, this time with the correct ISSN but the volume would be 14 which means volume 19 for 1981 has to be incorrect. But it also cant be volume 19 of the Journal because year 1981 was volume 12. Can I have some clarification from the main author because of this? I ask because I planned to translate the article into German but with such errors in it I dont want to start. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads up, Bomzibar. If you look online, you get this (the 1981 article), which is Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. I have fixed the ISSN and publisher in this article. Best I can tell, when I was writing I copied the citation for the 1982 reference and missed changing the ISSN and publisher. My apologies, and sorry the source review at FAC missed that! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the quick response and excuse my little aggressive tone. I come back to you if I discover any other ambiguities. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was still worrying because of the volume number and I think I got the mistake. The article was NOT published in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (after all it wasnt in the Cambridge Online Database too) but in the journal Southeast Asian Studies (OCLC-Link) whose 1981 volume was the number 19. --Bomzibar (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1740_Batavia_massacre&oldid=1196531283"