Colonial administrators were certain about racial character but uncertain how to name the population

Evidence

Marginalia on the petitions, annotations on subsequent reports, and confusion over the population to which it referred—and how to refer to them—were scribbled across page after page. In question was both the “real” nature of the complaints and the racial identity of those involved. Demands to improve the pension allotment were seen as pertaining prin- cipally to the “Inlandsche Christenen” (“native Christians”) but the Minister of Colonies report to the King that September suggests that the identity of the participating population was less than clear. In it, the terms “Portugezen,” “creolen,” and “kleurlingen” (“colored”) were added, then the latter two were crossed out, substituting “Inlandsche kinderen” in the margins. If there was considerable ambiguity surrounding what to call the lower rungs of the mixed population, the evaluation of their in- herent shortcomings was much more certain. As the Minister of Colonies put it: “The needs of these people are very few. For them, the half of a pension is more than the full pension for a European. Because of their limited mental capacities, they seldom get further than subordinate posi- tions such as clerks, overseers, etc. for which the Radikaal is not re- quired.” — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 518

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• XREF: Connects to colonial archival studies on racial categorization instability and to work on naming/classifying colonized populations.
• SEED: An essay angle: the contrast between sure judgments of racial capacity and flailing nomenclature as a signature of colonial common sense.

Related

• Racial categories in colonial petitions were unstable and contested (similarity 0.89)
• Colonial policy disputes centered on how race should be assessed, not what race is (similarity 0.87)
• Colonial administrators struggled to fix race terminology to specific social kinds (similarity 0.82)
• Colonial use of ‘black’ did not necessarily denote African descent (similarity 0.81)
• Colonial ethnic labels measured threat level rather than actual ethnicity (similarity 0.80)
• Colonial classifications imposed race categories that subjects never recognized as their own (similarity 0.80)
• Colonial officials proposed legal recognition of European status based on visible racial traits (similarity 0.80)
• Colonial archive labels disclosed political anxieties about mixed-blood domesticity. (similarity 0.79)
• Three-quarters of colonial-era classified Europeans had partial native origin (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial ethnic categories broke down under acts both personal and political (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial racial categories resisted stable definition by officials themselves (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial policy disputes were really disputes over how race could be known (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Colonial policy disputes centered on how race should be assessed, not what race is #corroborates (0.85)
• Colonial policy disputes were really disputes over how race could be known #corroborates (0.80) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 825
• Colonial race was judged by conduct and affiliation rather than appearance #qualifies (0.70)
• Colonial officials proposed legal recognition of European status based on visible racial traits #qualifies (0.60) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 961
• Colonial commissions treated everyday sensory details as proof of racial character #expands (0.60) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 183
• Colonial ethnic labels measured threat level rather than actual ethnicity #qualifies (0.55) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 1100
• Colonial administrative overviews signaled assumed mastery rather than real knowledge #qualifies (0.55)