Een schilderij van Raden Saleh : Sultan van Pontianak, Pangeran Sjarif Alkadri
Dit schilderij hangt in het museum Pasifika te Nusa Dua op Bali. Het wordt door de Nederlandse weduwe van Max Alkadrie junior geclaimd
Komen de achtergebleven of in oorlogstijd geroofde kunstwerken van Nederlanders ooit terug uit Indonesië? Erfgenamen wachten op een antwoord. de Volkskrant
...................
Thomson
Nassauschool Soerabaja
Depok
Wie is deze familie
Wolff
Tankbataljon Bandoeng 1939
Is de bruid Günther?
Wilde en Waldeck
Brouwer en Hagen
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Kerst 1930 a/b Baloeroan naar Indië
Bertha Lammerts van Bueren-de Wit
XXXXXXXXXX zwieten 214
Bisch
Detachement Verbruiksmagazijn,
Hollandia
Indisch4ever 
radio-interview met Louis Zweers
https://www.nporadio1.nl/fragmenten/villa-vdb/9e33e1d1-089d-4d1f-9e62-76881e87ffd3/2025-02-13-gestolen-nederlandse-kunst-in-indonesie-hangt-in-staatsmusea
Als deze pasteltekening is geroofd van de oorspronkelijke eigenaar dan is het logisch dat de erfgenamen een teruggave kunnen eisen.
De Nederlandse staat kan bemiddelende gesprekken voeren. Want de Indonesische staat claimt het ook als haar eigendom. Een dergelijke rol van de staat Nederland is niks koloniaal.
Verder is het wel interessant hoe die roof is toegegaan indertijd ? De oorspronkelijke eigenaars moesten de internering in en konden het niet meenemen ?
Was het geen eigendom meer van Hofker toen hij geïnterneerd werd ?
En hoe kwam het in bezit van Indonesië.
De schilderij is Indonesisch cultureel erfgoed, maar ook Nederlands cultureel erfgoed. Uiteindelijk hebben de erfgenamen het meeste recht.Een idee is dat Indonesië erkent dat het roofkunst is, mits bewezen, en het koopt van de erfgenamen ?
————————–
If this pastel drawing was stolen from the original owner, it is logical that the heirs can demand its return.
The Dutch state can mediate. Because the Indonesian state also claims it as its property.
Such a role of the Dutch state is not colonial at all.
Furthermore, it is interesting how the theft went at the time? The original owners, the Hofker couple, had to go into internment and could not take it with them?
Or had Hofker already sold it?
And how did it come into the possession of Indonesia.
The painting is Indonesian cultural heritage, but also Dutch cultural heritage. Ultimately, the heirs have the most rights.
One idea is that Indonesia recognizes that it is stolen art. if proven,and buys it from the heirs?
The debate over Willem Gerard Hofker’s painting “Mebakti in Gebed” has reignited conversations about cultural heritage, ownership, and the legacy of colonialism. While some voices, like the recent Volkskrant article titled “Waarom hangt geroofde kunst nog altijd aan de wand van de Indonesische president?”, focus on repatriation and allegations of theft, it’s crucial to approach this issue through a lens of inclusivity, diversity, and anti-colonialism. By doing so, we can foster a deeper understanding of our shared history and promote a more equitable dialogue between nations.
The period surrounding World War II and the Indonesian struggle for independence was one of immense upheaval and change. Artworks, personal belongings, and cultural artifacts often changed hands amidst the chaos. Labeling “Mebakti in Gebed” as “stolen” oversimplifies a complex historical narrative. Documentation from that era is scarce, making it challenging to determine the exact circumstances under which the painting remained in Indonesia. Hofker’s work was deeply influenced by Indonesian culture. His paintings are not just Dutch creations but collaborations with the people and landscapes of Bali. By recognizing these nuances, we avoid the pitfalls of presentism—judging the past solely by today’s standards—and instead appreciate the tangled web of historical events that brought us here.
Art has the unique power to transcend borders and bring people together. “Mebakti in Gebed”, which translates to “Devotion in Prayer”, captures a moment of spiritual depth that resonates with many Indonesians. The painting has become an integral part of Indonesia’s cultural heritage, displayed in the Presidential Palace in Bogor. It holds immense value for the Indonesian people, symbolizing a piece of shared history. Including Indonesian voices in this conversation enriches our understanding. It allows us to see the artwork not just through a Dutch or Western lens but as a piece that carries significance for multiple cultures. By shifting our focus from ownership to shared heritage, we promote inclusivity and acknowledge the diversity of experiences that art represents.
To truly address the legacy of colonialism, we must challenge lingering notions of power and entitlement. Demanding the return of the painting without considering Indonesia’s connection to it perpetuates a colonial mindset. It implies a one-sided claim over cultural artifacts, disregarding the agency and rights of the formerly colonized. Embracing anti-colonial principles means respecting Indonesia’s sovereignty and its people’s relationship with the artwork. By recognizing and rejecting these outdated power dynamics, we pave the way for more equitable international relationships.
Rather than engaging in adversarial claims, we can seek collaborative paths that honor our intertwined histories. Joint exhibitions or cultural programs can allow both nations to celebrate the artwork together. Research partnerships can deepen our collective understanding of Hofker’s work and its significance. Open communication fosters mutual respect and understanding, aligning with the principles of inclusivity and diversity. These approaches not only preserve the artwork’s integrity but also strengthen the bonds between our nations.
The story of “Mebakti in Gebed” is not just about a painting hanging on a wall; it’s about acknowledging the complexities of our shared past and envisioning a future rooted in mutual respect. By embracing inclusivity, we ensure that all voices are heard and valued. By celebrating diversity, we recognize the richness that different perspectives bring to our understanding of art and history. And by committing to anti-colonialism, we actively dismantle the lingering structures of oppression. Let us move forward not by asserting claims over objects but by building bridges through shared heritage. Together, we can transform “Mebakti in Gebed” from a point of contention into a symbol of unity and cooperation.
I invite readers to reflect on how we engage with cultural artifacts from our shared histories. Let us promote conversations that are inclusive and forward-thinking, honoring the diverse narratives that make up our global community.
Yuniang Hufa, what part of STEALING don’t you understand?
A.Olive
In Bitung, vlakbij Manado, is een flinke voorraad illegale solar (diesel) in beslag genomen. Dit werd natuurlijk gestockeerd, net zoals men doet met illegale sigaretten, vóór vernietiging.
En wat blijkt nu? In de containers bevindt zich momenteel water. Natuurlijk krijg je grappen over ‘het mirakel van Bitung’, geen water in wijn maar diesel in water.
Maar het toont wel één ding; niets maar dan ook niets gaat hier volgens het boekje en alles wordt ‘geregeld’. Denk maar niet dat je ooit iets terugziet van een porseleincollectie die door een brand deels vernietigd zou zijn, om niet te spreken van het huis van je opa in Menteng (Weltevreden).
Sommigen willen een schilderij terug.
Namens mijn moeder roep ik: