Search

The paper presents a previously unknown doctoral dissertation prepared in the 1970s in Polish by Abdullah Jalal Fatah under the guidance of Polish sociologist Józef Chałasiński. The thesis, entitled ‘Development and Dissemination of the Kurdish Culture in Iraq’, bears the mark of communist ideology but also of Polish heritagisation, in which culture and intellectuals became an important driving force in the process of nation-building and in seeking international recognition. Following David C. Harvey’s definition of heritage, and focusing primarily on its intangible aspects, we suggest that Fatah’s thesis can be read today as an interesting document of Kurdish heritage-making inspired by Polish experience and academic tradition. Abstract in Kurmanji Rewşenbîrekî bi peywir: Evdila Celal Fetah, teza wî ya li ser çanda kurdî (1978) û mîratsazkirina bi îlhama Yuzêf Xalasînskî û akademisyenên polonî Ev nivîsar tezeke doktorayê ya nenas pêşkêşî xwendevanan dike ku di salên 1970î de, ji hêla Evdila Celal Fetah ve û bi çavdêriya civaknasê polonî Yuzêf Xalasînskî, bi polonî hat nivîsandin. Di bin navê ‘Pêşketin û belavbûna çanda kurdî li Iraqê’ de, ev tez nîşanên bandora îdeolojiya komunîst di xwe de vedihewîne, digel mîratsaziya polonî ya ku çand û rewşenbîr tê de rola hêzeke çalakger û bingehîn dileyizin di pêvajoya netewesazkirin û pesenda navneteweyî de. Li gorî pênaseya mîratê ya David C. Harvey, ku bi taybetî li ser aliyên wê yên neguherbar radiweste, em pêşniyazî vê yekê dikin ku teza Fetah wek belgeyeke balkêş a mîratsazkirina kurdî bi îlhama tecrube û adeta akademîk ên polonî bê xwendin. Abstract in Sorani Rewşenbîrêk be peyamêkewe: ‘Ebdullah Celal Fetah, doktoranamekey le ser keltûrî kurdî (1978) û kelepûrsazî le jêr karîgerî Yuzêf Xallasînskî û ekadimyay pollend de Em nûsîne basî le doktoraname nenasrawekey ‘Ebdullah Celal Fetah dekat ke le sallekanî 1970 da be zimanî pollendî û be serpereştî komellnasî pollendî Yuzêf Xalasînskî bû. Nawnîşanî doktoranameke, ‘Geşes

The Batavian Revolution of 1795 that overthrew the old stadtholderly regime of the Dutch Republic was followed by a period of intense political conflict in which popular mobilization played a key role. Among revolutionary elites, the main dividing line between moderates and radicals occurred around questions concerning the reorganization of the state apparatus and the writing of a new constitution. A full rejection of the federative model of the state that had characterized the former Dutch Republic became central to the repertoire of the radical faction in the National Convention. However, instances of protest and rebellion from below, often supported by the radicals in the Convention, generally remained conspicuously local in focus. This clash between national ideals and highly localized realities remains one of the central paradoxes of the Batavian Revolution. The form in which this process unfolded was peculiar to the trajectory of the Batavian Revolution, which more than any of its counterparts became centered on constitutional issues. But severe tensions between programs for the rationalization of state bureaucracy along nationalizing lines and popular support for far-reaching local autonomy existed in each of the Atlantic Revolutions. In January 1797, radical democrats in Leiden attempted to find an organizational form to solve this problem. They called for a national gathering of representatives from local revolutionary clubs and neighborhood assemblies. The response by the moderate provincial and national authorities was remarkably swift, and the initiative was repressed before the meeting could take place. Examining the failure of this unique attempt to bridge the divide between local popular mobilization and national revolutionary programs, as well as the discussion that followed this failure, can help us understand the possibilities and limitations of Batavian radicalism.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the Dutch Republic was the centre of a worldwide economic and political empire connecting Europe, Asia and the Atlantic world. In Europe, the Dutch Republic was the destination of millions of European migrant labourers, many of who moved to overseas domains. Throughout the globe, the Republic was present through its navy, its private merchants and its chartered trading companies, often operating on a thin line between engaging in trade and waging war. Traditional historiography claimed the Dutch Republic as a ‘slave free enclave’. In addition, economic histories have focussed on the Dutch Republic as the ‘first modern economy’, characterised by free labour markets, dependable institutions and sustained economic growth. In this traditional view the overseas use of coercion and enslavement are seen as foreign anomaly. Slave trade, slave ownership and slave based production, however, were systematic in both the Atlantic and Asian settlements under Dutch rule. These histories have often remained overseas histories. The question how slavery impacted the early modern Dutch Republic economically, politically and culturally has been left unanswered. This article, rather than shying away from these issues, takes them as the centre of a debate that is only now starting. It focuses on the interconnections and impacts of slavery in both Asia and the Atlantic on the Dutch Republic. The article first outlines the global history of slavery and slave trade in the Dutch empire. After this, it assesses the impact of slavery on the Republic in three interrelated domains: first, the economic impact on the Republic of overseas slave trade and slave related production; second, impact of slaves traveling in and to the Republic; third, the social and cultural impact of slavery and slave trade on the Republic. It concludes that slavery was very much alive in the Dutch Republic both as an institution and as a common practice. Slavery had a strong im

Dutch research into the slave trade and its importance to the Dutch economy has often limited itself to investigating the financial success of slave trading companies, calculating the success of slaving by its profit rates. The central argument made in this article is that grossmargin is a better indicator for the importance of the slave trade to the Dutch Republic. Even if a slave trading company did not make a net profit on a voyage, such a voyage led to extra activities such as shipbuilding or the production of trade goods. This article provides a reconstruction of this gross margin for the entire period that the Dutch were engaged in the trans-Atlantic slave trade by combining the most recent data on the size of the slave trade (including illicit trade) with data on both African and American price data of slaves.