"This book is about postcolonial memory in the Netherlands. This term refers to conflicts in contemporary society about how the colonial past should be remembered. The question is often: who has the right or ability to tell their stories and who do not? In other words: who has a voice, and who is si ... lenced? As such, these conflicts represent a wider tendency in cultural theory and activism to use voice as a metaphor for empowerment and silence as voice’s negative counterpart, signifying powerlessness. And yet, there are voices that do not liberate us from, but rather subject us to power. Meanwhile, silence can be powerful: it can protect, disrupt and reconfigure. Throughout this book, it will become clear how voice and silence function not as each other’s opposites, but as each other’s continuation, and that postcolonial memory is articulated through the interplay of meaningful voices and meaningful silences." (Publisher description) more

"Various terms are in use to describe violent, bullying, demeaning, or otherwise antagonistic expressions on social media platforms. Hate speech is common, but also not limited to the online world. While it does signal that these expressions are speech acts, and therefore, as we maintain, performati ... ve, the reference to ‘hate’ does not always seem justified. While many different motivations and affects can be involved, and hatred on the part of the sender is surely one of them, other motivations exist too (as considered for instance in chapters two, three and seven). The term is thus both too broad and too narrow in its seeming attribution of motives. Feminist scholar Emma Jane has introduced the term ‘e-bile’, which is useful, but particularly designed for the specific category of misogynist and objectifying comments addressed to women online. We propose online vitriol as a term to think about this phenomenon, because it stresses both the violent and the uncontrollable aspects of the phenomenon and its typical excesses, such as shitstorms, and speech acts that silence, threaten, or harm others [...] Online vitriol seems to be a particular product of the Web 2.0, the ‘participatory’ or ‘social web’ that has evolved since the early twenty-first century, and that revolves around ‘user-generated content’ and conceives of the web as a space of interaction, rather than a collection of static sites where one can read information. The term ‘Web 2.0’ was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci in an article prophetically titled ‘Fragmented Future’. Fragmentation does indeed seem to be one of the key aims and effects of online vitriol enabled by the interactive structure of social media platforms. In recent years particularly, online vitriol has come to serve political powerplay, with actors often operating from a stance of victimhood and supposed powerlessness, while at the same time attracting considerable attention, visibility and influence." (Pages 13-14) more