Leprosy and the Colonial Gaze: Comparing the Dutch West and East Indies, 1750-1950

S.A.M. Snelders; F.G. Huisman; Leo van Bergen

doi:10.1093/shm/hkz079

Leprosy and the Colonial Gaze: Comparing the Dutch West and East Indies, 1750-1950

S.A.M. Snelders, F.G. Huisman, Leo van Bergen

University Medical Center Utrecht

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

This article is looking at colonial governance with regard to leprosy, comparing two settings of the Dutch colonial empire: Suriname and the Dutch East Indies. Whereas segregation became formal policy in Suriname, leprosy sufferers were hardly ever segregated in the Dutch East Indies. We argue that the perceived needs to maintain a healthy labour force and to prevent contamination of white populations were the driving forces behind the difference in response to the disease. Wherever close contact between European planters and a non-European labour force existed together with conditions of forced servitude (either slavery or indentured labour), the Dutch response was to link leprosy to racial inferiority in order to legitimise compulsory segregation. This mainly happened in Suriname. We would like to suggest that forced labour, leprosy and compulsory segregation were connected through the ‘colonial gaze’, legitimising compulsory segregation of leprosy sufferers who had become useless to the plantation economy.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	611–631
Number of pages	21
Journal	Social History of Medicine
Volume	34
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkz079
Publication status	Published - 1 May 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Stephen Snelders, Freudenthal Institute/History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Leo van Bergen, Independent Researcher; Frank Huisman, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. The research project Leprosy and Empire was carried out in the Netherlands at the Julius Center in Utrecht and at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV) in Leiden. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (file number NWO: 360-69-020). We are also very grateful for the support and advice over the course of the project, given by the following colleagues: Peter Boomgaard (), William Faber, Maurits Hassankhan, Liesbeth Hesselink, Henk Menke, Gert Oostindie, Toine Pieters, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Hardyanto Soebono and Henry de Vries.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s) 2019.

Keywords

colonial medicine
tropical medicine
Plantation economy
Labour management
Colonial gaze
Leprosy
Compulsory segregation
Dutch colonial empire
Othering

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1093/shm/hkz079Licence: CC BY

leprosyFinal published version, 316 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{80aaec32d4e941a19501d94dd1d1281e,

title = "Leprosy and the Colonial Gaze: Comparing the Dutch West and East Indies, 1750-1950",

abstract = "This article is looking at colonial governance with regard to leprosy, comparing two settings of the Dutch colonial empire: Suriname and the Dutch East Indies. Whereas segregation became formal policy in Suriname, leprosy sufferers were hardly ever segregated in the Dutch East Indies. We argue that the perceived needs to maintain a healthy labour force and to prevent contamination of white populations were the driving forces behind the difference in response to the disease. Wherever close contact between European planters and a non-European labour force existed together with conditions of forced servitude (either slavery or indentured labour), the Dutch response was to link leprosy to racial inferiority in order to legitimise compulsory segregation. This mainly happened in Suriname. We would like to suggest that forced labour, leprosy and compulsory segregation were connected through the {\textquoteleft}colonial gaze{\textquoteright}, legitimising compulsory segregation of leprosy sufferers who had become useless to the plantation economy.",

keywords = "colonial medicine, tropical medicine, Plantation economy, Labour management, Colonial gaze, Leprosy, Compulsory segregation, Dutch colonial empire, Othering",

author = "S.A.M. Snelders and F.G. Huisman and {van Bergen}, Leo",

note = "Funding Information: Stephen Snelders, Freudenthal Institute/History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Leo van Bergen, Independent Researcher; Frank Huisman, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. The research project Leprosy and Empire was carried out in the Netherlands at the Julius Center in Utrecht and at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV) in Leiden. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (file number NWO: 360-69-020). We are also very grateful for the support and advice over the course of the project, given by the following colleagues: Peter Boomgaard (), William Faber, Maurits Hassankhan, Liesbeth Hesselink, Henk Menke, Gert Oostindie, Toine Pieters, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Hardyanto Soebono and Henry de Vries. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 The Author(s) 2019.",

year = "2021",

month = may,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/shm/hkz079",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

pages = "611–631",

journal = "Social History of Medicine",

issn = "0951-631X",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Leprosy and the Colonial Gaze

T2 - Comparing the Dutch West and East Indies, 1750-1950

AU - Snelders, S.A.M.

AU - Huisman, F.G.

AU - van Bergen, Leo

N1 - Funding Information: Stephen Snelders, Freudenthal Institute/History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Leo van Bergen, Independent Researcher; Frank Huisman, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. The research project Leprosy and Empire was carried out in the Netherlands at the Julius Center in Utrecht and at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV) in Leiden. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (file number NWO: 360-69-020). We are also very grateful for the support and advice over the course of the project, given by the following colleagues: Peter Boomgaard (), William Faber, Maurits Hassankhan, Liesbeth Hesselink, Henk Menke, Gert Oostindie, Toine Pieters, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Hardyanto Soebono and Henry de Vries. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s) 2019.

PY - 2021/5/1

Y1 - 2021/5/1

N2 - This article is looking at colonial governance with regard to leprosy, comparing two settings of the Dutch colonial empire: Suriname and the Dutch East Indies. Whereas segregation became formal policy in Suriname, leprosy sufferers were hardly ever segregated in the Dutch East Indies. We argue that the perceived needs to maintain a healthy labour force and to prevent contamination of white populations were the driving forces behind the difference in response to the disease. Wherever close contact between European planters and a non-European labour force existed together with conditions of forced servitude (either slavery or indentured labour), the Dutch response was to link leprosy to racial inferiority in order to legitimise compulsory segregation. This mainly happened in Suriname. We would like to suggest that forced labour, leprosy and compulsory segregation were connected through the ‘colonial gaze’, legitimising compulsory segregation of leprosy sufferers who had become useless to the plantation economy.

AB - This article is looking at colonial governance with regard to leprosy, comparing two settings of the Dutch colonial empire: Suriname and the Dutch East Indies. Whereas segregation became formal policy in Suriname, leprosy sufferers were hardly ever segregated in the Dutch East Indies. We argue that the perceived needs to maintain a healthy labour force and to prevent contamination of white populations were the driving forces behind the difference in response to the disease. Wherever close contact between European planters and a non-European labour force existed together with conditions of forced servitude (either slavery or indentured labour), the Dutch response was to link leprosy to racial inferiority in order to legitimise compulsory segregation. This mainly happened in Suriname. We would like to suggest that forced labour, leprosy and compulsory segregation were connected through the ‘colonial gaze’, legitimising compulsory segregation of leprosy sufferers who had become useless to the plantation economy.

KW - colonial medicine

KW - tropical medicine

KW - Plantation economy

KW - Labour management

KW - Colonial gaze

KW - Leprosy

KW - Compulsory segregation

KW - Dutch colonial empire

KW - Othering

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115953687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/shm/hkz079

DO - 10.1093/shm/hkz079

M3 - Article

C2 - 34084094

SN - 0951-631X

VL - 34

SP - 611

EP - 631

JO - Social History of Medicine

JF - Social History of Medicine

IS - 2

ER -

Leprosy and the Colonial Gaze: Comparing the Dutch West and East Indies, 1750-1950

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this