Talk:Dutch colonial empire/Archive 3

Colors
What do the two different colors of green on the map mean? Shouldn't there be some sort of key in the image description? Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dark green means the Dutch West India Company, light green means the Dutch East India Company. Red4tribe (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The map should probably have a legend on it somewhre to avoid the obvious confusion -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was added after my previous comment. Red4tribe (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant an in-picture table like this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evolution_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies.png. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it now. Red4tribe (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe consider changing the colours, I'm colourblind and the orange and the light green are identical. I needed a friend to read the map for me. JackV76 (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

India
Isn't the map of the Dutch empire in India a bit far-fetched. The Dutch had bases in a couple of towns in South-West India and SE India, which they controlled, and had their areas of influence, but they never captured territory in these areas. The map shows the whole of SW India as being part of the Dutch empire, which is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrishikesh.1982 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Metropole
On the current map I noticed that the boundaries of the European mother country (which is shown in light green) correspond with those of the short-lived United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-1830, de facto), which are those of the current Benelux. This seems a bit odd, as most of the time the territory of the historical Netherlands has been similar to that of the current state except for a few changes to its southern border which hardly show up on a map of this scale. For comparison, the corresponding section of the map at French colonial empire does not show the territory of the Napoleonic empire but rather that of contemporary France. Iblardi (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The map should use the period territories (in this case, the anachronistic greatest extent). If the French one doesn't, that's their error. — LlywelynII  15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maine
The map includes a colony in Maine and eastern Canada that goes unremarked upon at New Netherland, Maine, and History of Maine. Any idea what it's talking about or is it just completely wrong, like the treatment of India? — LlywelynII  15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Porto Rico
The map also includes Porto Rico, although its history page lists them as holding one city for less than a day during an attack. Is there another settlement that needs to be included over there or another error that needs to be corrected on the chart? — LlywelynII  16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pagoeta/Morris
Oh dear. Here we go again. "Over 25 million worldwide speakers of Dutch", with Pagoeta/Morris quoted as a reference. One can search inside the latest edition of this book at Amazon. On page fifty one (not 68) we see the authors write "with over 20 million speakers". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummmm no. Red4tribe (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The later edition of the book contradicts the earlier edition then. Goes to show the problems with using travel guides as an academic reference.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
It says that it needs copyediting at the top, yet nearly every single change in this edit made the article worse, either due to grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.


 * consisted by -> should be "consisted of"
 * Dutch merchants and sailors also participated in the exploration in the 16th and 17th centuries though the vast new territories, revealed by Willem Barents, Henry Hudson, Willem Janszoon and Abel Tasman in Australasia and Oceania. -> does not make sense (read it back to yourself - note the presence of the word "though")
 * remained under the Netherland's control -> wrong punctuation
 * the Duch -> spelling mistake
 * wich resulted in -> spelling mistake
 * the coastal provinces of Holland and Zeeland had for a long time (prior to Spanish rule) has been important hubs of the European maritime trade network. -> "has" does not make sense here
 * for an initial period of 25 yars. -> spelling mistake
 * The company itself was founded as a joint stock company, similarly to its English rival, the English East India Company. that has been founded two years earlier -> again, "has" does not make sense here

Therefore I have either corrected or reverted the majority of this edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. Grammar and spelling is not my strongest side. You may correct it as much as you whish. But you did removed edits which I think are necessary. What I was after is simply to clarify, and clarify some historical facts and to improve the logical structure.

I removed the Antarctica because the Dutch never had any colonies there.

I added the Eighty Years War  (1568-1648) , and you removed that. Timeperiods are necessary in history articles.

I added William the Silent|William of Orange]], the main leader of the Dutch revolt against the Spanish (removed)

I added independence was declared of the United Provinces in the 1581 Act of Abjuration, and you remove that too. (saying was declared and move on to the next topic makes you wonder – who?)

I added that the Duch were maritime and economic power instead major force

I added :accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain,  called the Revolt of the Netherlands (1568-1648) , which was the revolt of the Seventeen Provinces in the Low Countries against...

that is simply clarifying the sentence below (and you removed it)

The Dutch used their skills in shipping and trading and were aided by the nationalism and militarism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain which was the revolt of the Seventeen Provinces in the Low Countries against the Spanish Empire.

More confusion:

The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) was a religious war principally fought in Germany, where it involved most of the European powers, between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, and gradually developed into a general, political war involving most of Europe. And this Thirty Years' War was a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence.

On the other hand, The Dutch Revolt, Eighty Years' War or the Revolt of the Netherlands (1568—1648), was a war of the Duch against the Spanish, and both the The Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War ended at the same time.

It is not easy to get this reading the article...

there is a guideline, explain the obvious. I think these things need to be explained

Colonial Attitude
"Colonial Attitude" is suggested as an additional general attribute regarding colonial regimes. This specific article does not seem to explore the colonial attitude of the Dutch. In South Africa and in Indonesia particularly harsh and dehumanizing Dutch regimes were exercised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.163.1 (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality scale
Hope my humble additions in its subject matter capacity help move this article up the quality scale. Have made earlier additions to the legacy chapter of the Dutch East Indies article, but found Indonesia Project editors did not appreciate my contributions. Mvg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.21.212 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was the nature of your edits - ie, your promotion of the great gifts of Dutch colonialism such as cute architecture, European loan words, and cash crops that the native subjects should be grateful for, while forgetting to mention the Dutch jailed those trying to fight off the colonial oppression of the poverty stricken natives. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * encyclopedias are in general not places for promoting singular perspectives of colonialists - - there are always more than one perspective of the colonial experiance (colonialist and colonised - a well documented subject) - additions in its subject matter capacity help move this article up the quality scale - probably should have been stated as - additions in subjective evaluations of dutch colonialism help move the article up the unencylopeadiac scale... SatuSuro 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The same can be said for the editor's additions to Dutch East Indies. --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From Australia Professor of Asian Studies, Adrian Vickers:
 * ''(for their colonial development)"...they expected gratitude...they were genuinely shocked when [in 1945] that some of the peoples of the island would fight to the death to keep them out. There was a vast gap between Dutch perceptions of their rule, and the views of their Indonesian subjects..."
 * regards --Merbabu (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most Dutch Diaspora actually Jews?
Are not most of the supposed Dutch who colonized the new world actually Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. OKelly (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
Per ENGVAR, this edit established the page's usage as American English. Kindly maintain it. — LlywelynII  15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy:
Note: African was primarily farm (south african). Elsewhere in africa, trade associations. Boers, farmers, usually pissed on the crown and can therefore NOT be said to have been emperial, trade associations where usually of SMALLISH footprint and therefore not considered emperial. DID the dutch have an empire??? Lolz, no, the dutch in reality never had an empire, they had a trading fleet with outposts and localized villages but never did go inland to state, "IN THE NAME OF THE CROWN", blahblahblah, "ALL GOLD is OURS", blahblahblah. COULD that have been that way? Sure, if the dutch had it´s flagprint onto most of europe, sure, I suppose, however, no SMALL nation has ever had empire without their own breeding locally and eventually stating, ´stuff the crown´, and NOT getting away with that.

There never was a dutch empire, the netherlands has never had such large populations to have made that possible, being mostly in a defensive mode.

Kindly make the pertinent corrections.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Dutch Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726053035/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152546/http://www.insideindonesia.org/weekly-articles-103-jan-mar-2011/postcolonial-neglect-in-holland-20031930 to http://www.insideindonesia.org/weekly-articles-103-jan-mar-2011/postcolonial-neglect-in-holland-20031930
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509161409/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainsDamerica.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainsDamerica.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309132455/http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/publications?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=RP0010-04 to http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/publications?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=RP0010-04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Dutch wars the cause?
The Anglo-Dutch wars were definitely not solely harmful to the Republic. While England won the First and Fourth (which occurred much later), the Second and Third were won by the Dutch, and the Raid on the Medway and Glorious Revolution were pretty much the height of Dutch naval power. Trading New York for Suriname was seen as advantegeous at the time, and some other colonial possessions were apparently traded due to perceived lack of value or little priority. Rather, I more often seen historians argue that the peace following the Glorious Revolution led to a gradual power transfer from the Dutch to the British, and that the time of Napoleon was arguably the point where the Dutch Empire suffered the most. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One specific instance said to have provoked the Netherlands was via the Netherlands influence in Barbados as well. Anglo-Dutch merchant William Courteen earned a significant profit from the Dutch empire and literally lost through founding Barbados.  Upon England learning that Courteen's influence could lead to Barbados (the England's richest colony) becoming a Dutch port, England forbid all Dutch trade with Barbados.  The island was also re-titled instead to James Hay (Lord Carlisle) of England.  The Dutch had already led to waves of Jews moving into Barbados, they introduced Windmills all over Barbados *and* Sugarcane's establishment in Barbados. However it was never formally a Dutch colony. To help pacify the Dutch settlers which made it to Barbados by the 1630s, England had to develop a local House of Burgess in 1639 (forerunner to the current House of Assembly) to try to govern the English + Dutch settlers and spell out the level of autonomy England would grant them. CaribDigita (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming: Dutch Empire => Dutch colonial empire
AFAIK, het Nederlandse koloniale rijk corresponds roughly to "Dutch colonial empire"?Ernio48 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be necessary if multiple Dutch empires existed, ie the article for French colonial empire makes the distinction of "colonial" due to the fact that "French Empire" may also refer to multiple articles, some of which only cover self-declared French empires that existed in Europe.


 * However, the precedent here seems to lie with British Empire: like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands only ever had one empire. There is no chance of confusing the empire covered in this article with another Dutch Empire; ergo, the common name should be retained. -- Katan gais (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just wanted to find out why this divergence. Perhaps it should be noted somewhere on a sidenote.Ernio48 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dutch Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115073136/http://www.bataviabooks.com/Chinese.htm to http://www.bataviabooks.com/Chinese.htm
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5tg9OIPKi?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nt.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Netherlands" colony status
In the info-box on the right, it includes the Netherlands (, Belgium, and Luxembourg) as colonies, whereas I'm not too sure whether Belgium and Luxembourg can or can't be counted as a Dutch colony, the Netherlands itself can definitely not be counted as a colony, and as such shouldn't be under the category of "colonies". Right? Nawichusea (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Map
The map here is legitimately one of the worst wikipedia maps I have ever seen, and I think that it should be replaced. First of all, look at the baltics, what happened to Lithuania? it seems to have been partitioned between Poland and Latvia, secondly, I know that this map is supposed to be of the world of the 1930’s, but if that where the case then why is korea divided into north and south? Wasn’t it all under Japanese Colonial Rule? Also, tibet is not listed as a country in this map, and yet Mongolia is? Both Countries where equally illegitimate and unrecognized at the time, in maps of 1930’s asia, you should either list both countries as part of china, or list them both as independent, you shouldn’t just list one as independent and forget the other, its both, or neither. Finally, even if this was a completely accurate map of the political status in the 30’s, I still think you should switch the map to a map of the modern world, with imperial borders superimposed on the modern map, as many of the dutch colonies shown as part of the dutch empire in the 1930’s map, where not part of the dutch empire at the time, and overall I have no idea why there is a map of the 30’s world here in the beginning. I hope you all take my edit suggestions into consideration, and get a better map of the Dutch Empire. Please Respond with your own ideas and take on my suggestions if you have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM1256 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)