Broken Chains - The National Slavery Monument as a beacon of remembrance

The role of the Netherlands in the Transatlantic Slave Trade

Between 1501 and 1814, the Dutch were responsible for approximately 4.4 percent of the abduction and deportation of more than twelve million Africans to Brazil, North America, Suriname, and the Dutch Antilles.Footnote1  Enslaved people and their children – born into slavery – were regarded as commodities and property, forced to perform labour under appalling conditions on plantations for the benefit of Dutch capitalism.Footnote2  Especially between 1700 and 1780, the number of deportations increased, with around fifty thousand individuals per year stripped of their autonomy and put to work in the colonies. The cruelty of punishments also escalated, particularly on Surinamese plantations. It was not until 1863 that slavery was legally abolished in the former Dutch colonies, decades later than in the former colonies of Denmark, England, or France. In Suriname, forced labour was not effectively abolished until 1873. Formerly enslaved people were obliged to work for another ten years under state supervision, allowing plantation owners to be financially compensated for the loss of their ‘property’.

De Vries’ monument stands as a reminder of the role of the Netherlands in the transatlantic slave trade and its lasting impact on our present-day society. His work is one of only nine slavery monumentsFootnote3  in the Netherlands; by comparison, there are 3,917 monuments commemorating victims of the Second World War, and hundreds of statues honouring colonisers.

The initiative for a Dutch culture of remembrance

The history of slavery has long remained underexposed in the Netherlands. Paramaribo, by contrast, is home to dozens of cultural-historical monuments that commemorate the legacy of slavery.Footnote4  De Vries’ archive reveals the need for a more robust culture of remembrance among the descendants of enslaved people. In 1993, this need led to the establishment of a committee within the Afro-Surinamese community to raise awareness of the history of slavery: the 30 June/1 July Committee. Its objective was similar to the Dutch tradition of commemorating World War II on 4 and 5 May. From that moment on, public attention for the subject increased, and the Dutch government began to take structural steps to expand knowledge about the history of slavery - for example, by strengthening the core objectives of history education.

The origin of the monument can be traced to a call issued by the Afro-European women’s movement Stichting Sophiedela, which on 3 July 1998 submitted the petition Traces of slavery to the Dutch House of Representatives.Footnote5  In light of the ‘unprocessed past and identity issues’, the organisation urged the parliament – in forty key proposals – to acknowledge the lasting effects of slavery. Chairwoman and politician Barryl Biekman played a pivotal role in building support and putting the issue on the political agenda. She also led the coalition of eighteen interest groups known as the National Platform Slavery Past (Landelijk Platform Slavernijverleden, LPS), which served as a dialogue partner to the government in realising the monument (fig. 2).Footnote6  In 1999, a Committee of Recommendation for the National Slavery Monument was formed. According to the committee, a ‘static’ memorial should be complemented by a ‘dynamic’ component. This vision took shape not only in De Vries’ sculpture but also in the founding of a knowledge institute: the National Institute for the Study of Dutch Slavery and its Legacy (NiNsee). The institute still uses De Vries’ sculpture as its logo. Never before had the Dutch government so openly acknowledged its role in the history of slavery.Footnote7  This lent the monument additional symbolic weight. Nevertheless, the government withdrew structural funding for the institute after just ten years, and it would take another two decades before King Willem-Alexander, on behalf of the government and the royal family, officially offered apologies for the actions of the Dutch state in the history of slavery, which he described as a ‘crime against humanity’.

Competition

In 2000, it was announced that the monument would be placed in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam, just a stone’s throw from the Wereldmuseum. At the time, Minister Roger van Boxtel (Urban Policy and Integration) launched a design competition for the best proposal. The commission stated that the Dutch history of slavery and its ongoing legacy should be made artistically visible in relation to both the present and the future. Additionally, the monument was to focus on ‘the struggle for freedom and the emancipation of the descendants of enslaved people.’Footnote8  Among the nine artists invited to submit a design were Meschac Gaba, Remy Jungerman, Nelson Carrilho, and - though added at a later stage - Erwin de Vries. Three of the proposals referenced slave ships, including Meschac Gaba’s design, which depicted a ship’s wheel with a fountain at its center representing the Atlantic Ocean. Remy Jungerman created a more contemporary piece in terms of medium: an interactive sound installation featuring a blue, metal megaphone that would emit soothing sounds through underground aluminum tubes. Two designs took the form of an obelisk, a shape initially favored by Barryl Biekman. Visitors to Amsterdam’s city hall could view an exhibition of all submissions and cast their votes via www.slavernijmonument.nl, a groundbreaking way at the time to encourage public engagement. Ultimately, Erwin de Vries won the competition with an overwhelming 2,600 of the 5,000 votes.

The design by Erwin de Vries

Erwin de Vries was born in Paramaribo on 21 December 1929. Between 1949 and 1985, he worked in the Netherlands. He received his education at the art academy in The Hague and the Rijksakademie in Amsterdam (fig. 3). From the 1950s onward, he built an oeuvre consisting of painting and sculpture that was internationally appreciated, with exhibitions in Mexico, Sweden, Curaçao, Jamaica, and Denmark, among others. His participation in Sonsbeek ’66, to which he was invited alongside artists such as Alberto Giacometti, Constantin Brâncuși, Pablo Picasso, and Calder, enhanced his reputation. The recognition he had gained led in 1970 to a solo exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam – as the first artist of colour – and in 1998, a second solo exhibition followed. De Vries’s painting style was influenced both by the COBrA movement and South American and Caribbean art and culture. His work is characterised by vivid and warm colours with a preference for blue, bold brushstrokes, spontaneous and sweeping forms, full figures, and strong contours. The female body and eroticism are often central themes. De Vries himself regarded his work primarily as neo-expressionist.

The composition of the Slavery Monument consists of three spatially separated, figurative yet semi-abstract scenes that together evoke the association with the hull of a ship (fig. 4). A group of chained, elongated slaves drags themselves bent forward at the rear of the ‘triptych.’ These figures represent the past of oppression, while the present is symbolized by a freedom fighter who, in the middle of the sculpture, breaks free from his chains and enters the ‘gate of abolition’ (fig. 5). At the front stands a larger-than-life female figure with her arms reaching toward the sky and her back in an impossible curve. She forms the bow of the imaginary ship. This personification of the future refers to human freedom and the hope for a world that can be shaped and will one day be entirely free from discrimination, according to De Vries.Footnote9

Notably, the rough bronze surface of the sculptures causes the individual features and characteristics of the figures to fade (fig. 6). Deep grooves are visible on their skin, and various industrial objects - shackles, chains, belts - as well as the scars of whip lashes, can be recognised. These visual signs seem to emphasise the economic exploitation of the slaves and the active erasure of African identity. De Vries described his design process, which he said took him only three hours, as a spiritual experience, in which he not only felt the pain of the slaves but also their immense strength.Footnote10

Although the group of sculptures refers to social progress and liberation, the visual language is traditional and consistent with the prevailing Dutch sculptural styles of the 1950s and 1960s.Footnote11  Most of De Vries’ public sculptures, including his busts of notable figures, were created in that style. Several explanations can be offered for this choice by De Vries. The artist’s scope of creative freedom is often limited when balancing the wishes of various audiences, the social function of the work, and government interests. That De Vries succeeded in this is evident from the fact that it was precisely the voice of the public that secured the victory for his design. At the very least, the work was thus accessible. Furthermore, Erwin de Vries had negative experiences with creating overly abstract memorial monuments, which may have made him wary of an experimental approach to the Slavery Monument. In 1962, he made his monument of Alonso de Ojeda, a Spanish conquistador who, according to tradition, ‘discovered’ Suriname, commissioned by the Surinamese government for the city of Paramaribo. According to De Vries, this was one of the highlights of his career. However, the government refused to install and pay for the statue, The Discoverer, because it was deemed too abstract and ‘too modern’.Footnote12  After De Vries exhibited it at Sonsbeek in Arnhem in 1966, the Surinamese government eventually decided, after many discussions, to place it in the Open-Air Museum by the Suriname River, far outside the city. Years later, in 2011, the statue was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

Preliminary studies and sketches

The archival material of De Vries reveals an artist who worked spontaneously and passionately; swiftly, expressively, and sketching at every opportunity. Using pencil, charcoal, marker, or ballpoint pen, he made preparatory studies of expressive figures on trivial materials such as napkins, cigar boxes, beer mats, or envelopes. De Vries frequently drew freehand in everyday situations: in cafés, on terraces, at the kitchen table. The female figure that stands as the prow of the ship at the front of the monument regularly appears in his sketches, sometimes with the characteristically curved back, sometimes standing, but always with outstretched arms and her face turned towards the sky (figs. 7–9). The archive of De Vries also contains multiple front and side views of the overall composition of the monument, including dimensions and handwritten financial correspondence.

De Vries also made a model of the Slavery Monument in bronze and wood (80 x 30 x 120 cm), which in 2002 became an important acquisition for the history department of the Rijksmuseum (figs. 10–11). The purchase was displayed during the redesign of a wall dedicated to Suriname, intended to draw more attention to the intertwined histories of the Netherlands and Suriname. Also exhibited was an embroidery from 1794 with a denunciation of slavery by Louise van Ommeren-Hengevelt (1757–1846), titled ‘Patriotic View on Slavery’.Footnote13  According to historian Alex van Stripriaan, De Vries’ work marked a turning point in the Dutch commemorative perspective on the slavery past.Footnote14  It perhaps also paved the way for the exhibition Slavery at the Rijksmuseum (2021), which, for the first time in a national museum, offered a broad perspective on the history of slavery through personal stories from Brazil, Suriname, and the Caribbean, as well as from South Africa and Asia.Footnote15

Reception, criticism, and controversy

Over the years, the Slavery Monument repeatedly stirred significant controversy. During its development, the state increasingly appropriated the project at the expense of the Afro/Surinamese-Dutch community’s wishes. Furthermore, it ignited political and cultural debates about Dutch national identity and collective memory. Who commemorates what, why, and for whom?

The monument appears to function not only as a memorial site but also as a space of controversy and political dispute. Since it facilitates celebrations while also channelling conflicting views on commemorative culture, it regularly leads to conflicts and debates. For instance, the Committee 30 June/1 July distanced itself from the monument at the time of the unveiling, considering it too much an initiative of the Dutch government. The choice of location in Oosterpark was also contested, as stakeholders found it insufficiently central. Moreover, the project’s motto, Connected by freedom, was intended to promote an ideal image of the ‘multicultural society’ and integration policies, but according to the LPS, the slogan distracted attention from its commemorative function and the painful legacies of slavery.Footnote16

The opening day on 1 July 2002 was especially contentious. The Oosterpark had capacity for four hundred invited guests for the unveiling by Queen Beatrix, but as a security measure, the park was fenced off by police and closed to the general public (figs. 12–13). The barriers were draped with black plastic, and visitors had to follow the event via a video screen on the other side of the park. This led to fierce protests and riots among the Surinamese-Dutch and Antillean communities, who had fought hard for the monument’s realisation. Although intended as a symbolic gesture of inclusivity, on that day, many experienced the monument as a sign of ongoing exclusion.Footnote17  Due to sustained criticism, the mayor and police decided to open the monument to the public earlier than planned on the same day.Footnote18

The relationship between the public and the organizers of Keti Koti, on the one hand, and political representatives on the other, has led to further controversies. In 2005, for example, the speech by Rita Verdonk, then Minister for Immigration and Integration Affairs, was drowned out by drumbeats because of her views on immigration, after which she quickly left the event. During Keti Koti 2013, no space was reserved for Erwin de Vries during the official program in the presence of the royal couple, prompting him to spontaneously take the stage, forcing the master of ceremonies Humberto Tan to improvise. In 2024, criticism arose again, this time regarding the planned presence of Speaker of the House, Martin Bosma, who refused to distance himself from previous inaccurate statements related to the slavery past, such as the term ‘anti-white racism.’ Consequently, NiNsee withdrew their invitation, resulting in no wreath being laid on behalf of the House of Representatives during the commemoration.

The history of slavery in the present

All in all, the National Slavery Monument today functions not only as a place of gathering and collective remembrance but also as a mirror of societal tensions regarding who holds the right to publicly remember. The monument’s creation and reception demonstrate the divergent views on the representation and transmission of the history of slavery. Yet the artwork remains alive: constantly subject to ritual activation, meaning-making, and political charge. Annual commemorations and celebrations underscore this dynamic but also show that freedom must be earned and safeguarded. Freedom is never a given. Current geopolitical situations highlight the vulnerability of our freedom even more. In this light, monumental art, such as De Vries’ sculptures, can ignite our national-historical and social consciousness and make the past tangible. They remind us that Dutch prosperity is partly rooted in oppression.

For those wishing to explore further the role of art in processing the slavery past, the RKD offers several starting points for further research into a decolonial art historiography.Footnote19  Many contemporary artists comment on slavery and its legacies in their artistic practice, such as Remy Jungerman with Tracing Lines. Patterns from the African Diaspora (2024).Footnote20  Archives of other Surinamese artists, like that of Nola Hatterman, also provide avenues for further research into Surinamese art history. In autumn 2025, a biography of Erwin de Vries will be published, written by cultural historian Hanneke Oosterhof, who conducted research into his life and oeuvre based on De Vries’ archive.