this?” For is it not a fact that only very few Europeans consider it worth while to condescend to an observation of the emotions of the coffee- and sugar-producing machines we call “Natives”? But even suppose their remarks were well-founded, he that adduces such considerations as a proof against the main tendency of my book gives me a great victory. For, translated, these considerations are as follows: “The evil you combat does not exist, or not in so high a degree, because the Native is not like your Saïdyah . . . there is in the ill-treatment of the Javanese not so great an evil as would be the case if you had drawn your Saïdyah more accurately. This Soondanese does not sing such songs, loves not thus, feels not thus, and therefore . . .”
No, Minister for the Colonies, no, Governor-General retired from active service, it is not that which you have to prove! You have to prove that the population is not ill-treated, apart from the question whether or no there are sentimental Saïdyahs among the population. Or would you dare maintain that it was lawful to steal buffaloes from people who do not love, who sing no melancholy songs, who are not sentimental?
If an attack were made from a literary point of view, I should defend the accuracy of my drawing of Saïdyah; but as a question of politics I would at once concede any strictures on this accuracy, in order to prevent the main argument from being shifted to wrong premises. It is all the same to me whether I am considered an incompetent artist, provided the admission be made that the ill-treatment of the native is: outrageous! For that is the word used in the note of Havelaar’s predecessor, and shown to Controller Verbrugge: a note which I have in front of me.
But I have other proof! And this is fortunate, for even Havelaar’s predecessor might have been mistaken.
Alas! if he was mistaken, he was severely punished for his mistake. He was murdered.
