Dutch Republic

[Zanthorus]

Anyone know any good reads on this period of Dutch history? What I've found online piqued my interest but the problem is I can't find much of it or much detail.

[Red Future]

Do you mean the Batavian republic during the revolutionary wars ?

[Zanthorus]

No, sorry, I should've been clearer. I was referring to the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic) which existed prior to the Batavian republic and whose existence coincided with the Dutch 'Golden Age'.

[PhoenixAsh]

One of the standard works is by Jonathan Israel;


The Dutch Republic; Its rise, Greatness and Fall. It covers the periods between
1400 and 1800 so it covers a wide period and pays quite a lot of attention to economic causes and effects (reason why it covers such a large time frame). It has more than 1100 pages...so you will be bussy for some time ;-)

It has a second part...which is also excellent.

Both books do have a few omissions and there is counter work for some historical references and interpretations. But thats normal with history books.

I definately recommend this book. It helped me passing a lot of exams with extra marks aswell as providing an excellent snowball into further research into Dutch history. If you want to have good quality, a lot of historic research and accuracy, then you need to find yourself a copy.

[PhoenixAsh]

O...yes...its not really an easy read book, but it isn't too complex either. Just a warning though ;).

[PhoenixAsh]

If you want to read into specific topics....

VOC and the East Indian colonial period and naval history: everything from Gaastra. He is one of the top authorities on the subject with encyclopedic knowledge of almost everything VOC up and including shipping manifesto's from memory. I am not sure if his work is translated in English.

If you want to read about slavery and the slave trade...then I advice you to seek out something by Emmer. He has written several books on the issue...and if you can stomach some of his more reactionary views that slavery was a-okay given the context you will be getting some very, very decent and indepth information on the subject. His books and works are definately translatyed in Englis....but they are mostly academic.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Dutch Republic was partly progressive for its time, certainly relative to the Spanish Empire.

From a Northeast Asian context (China, Japan, Korea), we don't condemn the Dutch for being European imperialists and colonists as much as we condemn nations like Britain, or even France, Russia and America. The Dutch never directly colonised any part of Northeast Asia, most of its colonial activities seemed to have been in Southeast Asia and Africa.

(From an African or Native American perspective, every single European nation is a colonising force, this isn't the case from an East Asian perspective. Despite being relatively backward, the large empires of East Asia could still hold its own against the smaller European nations, most of the time)

Rather than as colonisers and the colonised, the relationship between the Dutch and the Chinese during the 17th - 19th centuries for instance was more like that of competitors, albeit quite unequal ones. (The Dutch won most of the time) The Dutch East Indian Company clashed with Chinese settlers in Southeast Asia many times.

The Sino-Dutch Wars are quite interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_War

The Siege of Fort Zeelandia (traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_characters): 鄭成功攻台之役; literally "Koxinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga)'s Invasion of Taiwan"), which took place in 1661 and 1662, ended the Dutch East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company)'s rule over Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Dutch_colonial_rule) and began the Kingdom of Tungning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Tungning)'s rule over the island. Taiwanese scholar Lu Chien-jung described this event as "a war that determined the fate of Taiwan in the four hundred years that follow".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Dutch_War#cite_note-1)

Later on the Dutch destroyed the ethnic Chinese Lanfang Republic in what is now Indonesia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanfang_Republic

The Lanfang Republic (modern name in Traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese): 蘭芳共和國, Hanyu Pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyu_Pinyin): Lánfāng Gònghéguó) was a Chinese state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) in West Kalimantan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Kalimantan) in Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) that was established by a Hakka Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_people) named Low Lan Pak (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low_Lan_Pak&action=edit&redlink=1) (Luo Fangbo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luo_Fangbo&action=edit&redlink=1)) (羅芳伯) in 1777, until it was ended by Dutch occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies) in 1884.

More info: http://www.asiawind.com/hakka/lanfang.htm

During Japan's period of isolation under the Shogunate, only Chinese and Dutch ships could stop at Japanese ports. So Holland was the first European nation Japan absorbed "Western culture" from. There was a "School of Dutch Learning" in Japan, which basically means "school of Western philosophy" in the concrete sense.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well mostly the way the Dutch colonised could be expressed by "trade first; empire building second"....which was considered to costly and time consuming. Instead of ruling directly the Dutch prefered to struck bargains with local lords and political factions and supported them, or helped get them in power. Usually the price for this was total obedience. This is a generalisation offcourse. But the attitude of the Dutch was mainly to secure already existing holdings from previous colonial powers...mainly the Portugese and Spanish.

Thats why the Dutch were able to hold trade settlements in areas which other nations were not allowed in. The Dutch were willing to sacrifice direct controll in favor of trade agreements. Islands such as Decima were a direct result of that prioritising mentality.

That attitude changed during the second half of the 17th century when we were forced to compete with England and most definately in the 18th century. Before that time the colonies were in the posession of the trade companies....the WIC and VOC. Starting in the 17th century the WIC was nationalised and in the 18th century the VOC.

The VOC was run by a conglomorate of patricians called "Heren XVII" (and later XVIV) and was a business venture set to make profit and set up a trade empire. They were mainly bussiness men with often political ambitions or ties. The Dutch government relied heavilly on them for income and support.

All in all the Dutch were not really into colonisation....but more in to the capitalist exploitation and domination game.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well mostly the way the Dutch colonised could be expressed by "trade first; empire building second"....which was considered to costly and time consuming. Instead of ruling directly the Dutch prefered to struck bargains with local lords and political factions and supported them, or helped get them in power. Usually the price for this was total obedience. This is a generalisation offcourse. But the attitude of the Dutch was mainly to secure already existing holdings from previous colonial powers...mainly the Portugese and Spanish.

Thats why the Dutch were able to hold trade settlements in areas which other nations were not allowed in. The Dutch were willing to sacrifice direct controll in favor of trade agreements. Islands such as Decima were a direct result of that prioritising mentality.

That attitude changed during the second half of the 17th century when we were forced to compete with England and most definately in the 18th century. Before that time the colonies were in the posession of the trade companies....the WIC and VOC. Starting in the 17th century the WIC was nationalised and in the 18th century the VOC.

The VOC was run by a conglomorate of patricians called "Heren XVII" (and later XVIV) and was a business venture set to make profit and set up a trade empire. They were mainly bussiness men with often political ambitions or ties. The Dutch government relied heavilly on them for income and support.

All in all the Dutch were not really into colonisation....but more in to the capitalist exploitation and domination game.

Certainly socialists should not apologise for Dutch imperialism of any kind, but as I said, I do believe the Dutch were relatively more progressive than the Spanish Empire, which adopted a more direct colonial approach, and killed large numbers of innocent people.

There is also religious freedom (at least in principle) in the Dutch Republic and the colonies, unlike the rule of the Inquisition in the Spanish Empire.

[PhoenixAsh]

Certainly socialists should not apologise for Dutch imperialism of any kind, but as I said, I do believe the Dutch were relatively more progressive than the Spanish Empire, which adopted a more direct colonial approach, and killed large numbers of innocent people.

There is also religious freedom (at least in principle) in the Dutch Republic and the colonies, unlike the rule of the Inquisition in the Spanish Empire.


Yes, the nature and cultur are different....not only for the Dutch but also for the other Northern countries. But that has nothing to do with apologising. If anything its nothing a change... Sometimes that meant it was slightly less dramatic and bloody...but on the otherhand it was imperialist domination none-the-less.

I think a lot of these differences have their origin in the timeframe. Portugal and Spain used to be the most powerful nations in Europe, with a vast history of conquest. They were both deeply tied into feudal catholic society. The nature of that society changed during the religious wars as did the nature of economy with a slow shift towards a more trade oriented vision...and growth of the mercantilist ideas. Which was also stimulated by offcourse the same religious differences between the North and South. (protestantism and catholicism).

But there was also the possibility for them to simply conquer the holdings of these earlier colonial powers. And I think it may be very likely that the necessity to whipe out entire populations was absent because it had already happened. I wouldn't rule it out in any case.

Which is not to say that in later era's (or indeed in the early days) the Dutch or other Northern countries were averse from their own bloodbaths in the colonies..

On religious freedom...yes there was more religious freedom in the Dutch republic. But it is relative to what was the most common in those days. There was a verfy strained relationship between the protestants and catholics for example....and more often than not the catholics were approached or viewed and treated with suspicion.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, the nature and cultur are different....not only for the Dutch but also for the other Northern countries. But that has nothing to do with apologising. If anything its nothing a change... Sometimes that meant it was slightly less dramatic and bloody...but on the otherhand it was imperialist domination none-the-less.

I think a lot of these differences have their origin in the timeframe. Portugal and Spain used to be the most powerful nations in Europe, with a vast history of conquest. They were both deeply tied into feudal catholic society. The nature of that society changed during the religious wars as did the nature of economy with a slow shift towards a more trade oriented vision...and growth of the mercantilist ideas. Which was also stimulated by offcourse the same religious differences between the North and South. (protestantism and catholicism).

But there was also the possibility for them to simply conquer the holdings of these earlier colonial powers. And I think it may be very likely that the necessity to whipe out entire populations was absent because it had already happened. I wouldn't rule it out in any case.

Which is not to say that in later era's (or indeed in the early days) the Dutch or other Northern countries were averse from their own bloodbaths in the colonies..

On religious freedom...yes there was more religious freedom in the Dutch republic. But it is relative to what was the most common in those days. There was a verfy strained relationship between the protestants and catholics for example....and more often than not the catholics were approached or viewed and treated with suspicion.

Don't get me wrong though, because frankly I think all European imperialists (and non-Europeans like Mongols and Japanese) were detestable. I have no tolerance for imperialism of any kind.

Having said that, one cannot solely focus on quality and totally ignore quantity. While qualitatively all forms of imperialism and colonialism are utterly detestable and reactionary, there is still a significant difference in extent. Comparatively speaking, the Dutch were among the most "civilised" and "benevolent" of European colonists. See for instance the difference in the oppressive level between Dutch and British colonialism in South Africa.

And where would you find indigenous peoples actually to some extent longing for their colonial masters' return, other than in Taiwan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanese_aborigines#European_period_.281623.E2.80 .931662.29

However, the impact of the Dutch was deeply ingrained in aboriginal society. In the 19th and 20th centuries, European explorers wrote of being welcomed as kin by the aborigines who thought they were the Dutch, who had promised to return

Granted, this is probably more due to the brutality of the Japanese imperialists in Taiwan rather than any real virtue on the part of the Dutch centuries earlier. (Late capitalist exploitation tends to be even more brutal than early capitalist exploitation, making the latter look benign by comparison)

[Wanted Man]

Is there any information to be found that specifically compares how "bad" the different colonialisms were in comparison to each other? Because I seem to recall that even in the phase where we "just wanted to trade", we still managed to wipe out a whole population of a group of islands just to keep the monopoly on that precious nutmeg. The guy responsible for that still has a statue in his hometown, and there was a lot of outcry when the town council wanted to add a text that mentioned his responsibility for genocide.

So what would be interesting to know is whether things like this can be considered an exception, if there really are significant qualitative differences.

[Queercommie Girl]

Is there any information to be found that specifically compares how "bad" the different colonialisms were in comparison to each other? Because I seem to recall that even in the phase where we "just wanted to trade", we still managed to wipe out a whole population of a group of islands just to keep the monopoly on that precious nutmeg. The guy responsible for that still has a statue in his hometown, and there was a lot of outcry when the town council wanted to add a text that mentioned his responsibility for genocide.

So what would be interesting to know is whether things like this can be considered an exception, if there really are significant qualitative differences.

There is no real qualitative difference. But there are quantitative differences, especially when you consider when different colonialist/imperialist powers competed with one another.

In South Africa, the Dutch were almost like a "middle layer" between the ruling British imperialists and the indigenous Black peoples.

Also, even in the last few centuries, Europeans weren't strictly speaking the only colonialists and imperialists. Non-European nations like the Ottomans and Japan, and even the Chinese to a limited extent, all engaged in imperialism and colonialism as well. Taiwan for instance had no Han Chinese population on it before the 17th century. The Chinese forces led by Zheng Chenggong actually expelled the Dutch East Indian Company from the island in 1661-1662, thus paving the way for large-scale Chinese settlement of the island. So in many ways the Han Chinese could be considered as a colonial force in Taiwan as well, just like the Dutch and the Spanish. As much as Chinese nationalists like to portray Taiwan as an island "that has always been Chinese since time immemorial", the fact remains that Han settlers committed some limited atrocities in Taiwan against the indigenous peoples too, even though generally speaking the Chinese were more mild towards indigenous populations compared with most European colonial forces.

But the Dutch and the Chinese were never as brutal to the indigenous peoples of Taiwan as the later Japanese imperialists were. As Lenin stated, imperialism, or late capitalism, is often the most brutal and reactionary form of capitalist exploitation.



we still managed to wipe out a whole population of a group of islands just to keep the monopoly on that precious nutmeg.
I'd say that capitalism is still more progressive than feudalism and to kill people in order to keep a business monopoly is still more advanced than killing people for solely religious reasons, like the Crusaders did centuries before.

Don't socialists sometimes wipe people out for being reactionaries too? Just think about it, sometime far into the future, the actions of socialists today might seem barbaric and brutal too.

One thing to remember about the Dutch Republic though is that it did play a partially progressive role in European history, for defeating the Spanish Empire. This of course does not negate the atrocities it committed elsewhere.

[Queercommie Girl]

Something interesting: A historical music video on the Sino-Dutch War (1661/1662), from a Chinese perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WHtjsIp5Q