Colonial classification of violence as private revenge dismissed assailants’ broader claims

Evidence

Valck was versed in the official vernacular of ā€œunrestā€ but chose not to abide by its common and proper use. To classify an assault as a private matter was a well-honed convention for dismissing an assailant’s broader claims. Thus, in the Deli Tobacco Company’s 1925 commemorating volume, it could note that in the repeated assaults on Europeans of fifty years earlier, ā€œpeople were con- stantly uncertain as to whether an assault should be considered as ā€˜hostile’ or indeed only as ā€˜rapacious’ and ā€˜cut-throat’ though in fact people lost goods and lives in both cases.ā€ Valck, on the contrary, was unwilling to relegate the violence to ā€œonlyā€ personal revenge. He saw a pattern to it and his subsequent report told a story of violent retaliation and resent- ments that extended far beyond the particulars of the Luhmann family murder alone. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 1124

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

  • XREF: Connects to colonial epistemic categories of unrest and the discursive power of classification in colonial reporting.
  • SEED: Possible essay: how the ā€˜private revenge’ label functioned as a bureaucratic silencing mechanism in colonial violence cases.

Broader Connections