Ancien Regime Change part 3: The men who sold the world
The third installment of Ancien Regime Change (out of 6) focuses on the revolutionary struggles of the Dutch colonies at the end of the dominance of the trading companies, V.O.C. (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) and G.W.C (Geoctrooieerde Westindische Compagnie)
1602 and 1621 respectively. The “men” referenced in the title are none other than Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and William Usselincx, as both men were responsible for the founding of the V.O.C and the G.W.C. (respectively). Using scene paintings, portraits, and flags, I weave the colonial tapestries of the North and South, Eastern, and Western hemispheres of Dutch influence into my grander sub-narrative of the late 18th century popular revolutionary movements. Working from the idea that revolutionary movements often fail in their objectives in the face of empire. I seek the answers as to why and how. The narrative web begins small and grows larger with each subsequent telling and with this third installment, I have reached the middle. Given our present reactions to capitalism. pro or con, I wanted to revisit the literal “golden age” of the trading companies from which our current model of capitalism derives. Though various state and private enterprises existed from the early 17th century, the Dutch trading companies were pioneers in the field and managed to outclass their European rivals, until their sharp decline in the face of British sea power.
The Dutch colonial mercantile empire however, did not flourish absent resistance. At every turn, various polities rose up to challenge their domination. Some were successful and others were not. Yet, the shadow of colonial domination remains firmly in place to this day, in roughly the same geographical areas with a few more added for good measure. Again, the question is why? Despite the tireless revolts, the great shuffle of the French revolution, the upheaval of the two world wars, and the end of direct colonial intervention and independence or rather interdependence movements of the 1960’s. How has this archaic apparatus maintained their power and wealth? I have deduced three factors that may be the root cause for this phenomenon. The first is focus. The main goal of trading is to simply, trade. The morality of this trade is not discussed above the bottom line of profit and thus the goal is quite clear. “Be profitable at all costs” is the motto. For the other side of the equation, the answer is less simple. The initial meeting of the mercantilist is met with curiosity, followed by an exchange of goods. Usually in places of abundance, i.e the Global South, everything that is needed is readily accessible and therefore the initial trade is somewhat benign. The second factor is greed and violence. When the mercantilist sends their cargo ships to accumulate more and more goods, especially in exchange for things of little to no real value, the relationship becomes strained. The mercantilist then uses violence to influence the outcome or outright theft. The latter was a popular method of safeguarding the flow of various spices and other flora and fauna. This practice was the basis for the brutal plantation system and was not limited to the Dutch exclusively. Also, if gunboat diplomacy was not employed, the bribing of a hereditary or elected official was needed to gain control of the trade. The subjected peoples of the land of the trading partner usually abided by the decrees of their ruler and generally obeyed their wishes. However, the success of trading relied on many such arrangements and led to internecine conflict between the many polities involved. Eventually, the strongest and most adaptable polity would win, and trade would be increased without much interference and the defeated polities would provide the labor force, most commonly in the for of slaves. Or, if the polities remained belligerent, a fort would be erected and a naval and land-based war would ensue. The trade goods were thus secured and the integrity of the enterprise reinforced by more violence in the form of wars, raids, torture, enslavement and other brutal methods of coercion. The last factor is indoctrination. When the mightiest of the polities had been subdued, the psychological terror comes into play. The mercantilist/conqueror is seen as the alpha and his brutality, belief systems, and culture is impressed upon the indigenous polities
through various forms of subjugation, until the conqueror and the conquered function in an engineered symbiosis. There are many exceptions to this model however. Geography, armaments, and other logistics make direct subjugation difficult and resistance is capable of flourishing indefinitely in other places. My three-factor system is not a complete one. I just believe that it is the most common.
In this series of paintings, drawings, and flags, I’m focused on the victories of the indigenous polities in their struggle against the mercantilist/conquerors. Largely, because this aspect is rarely documented. I don’t know how this cycle will end but one of my missions as an artist is to foster a dialogue that can be had now in response to the imbalance of the past. And I have a long road ahead.
Umar Rashid