Comments by "Lynott Parris" (@DenUitvreter) on "The History Chap" channel.

Yes, it really need some Medieval mercantilistic, classist, racist, prudish rule. It already flourished, the hustling culture, the egalitarism and upward social mobility and the melting pot were already planted there by the Dutch. It flourished despite the British, because the British mostly let it be Dutch as was the deal.
3
@wouter.de.ruiter Surinam had been costing money for while.
2
@ So, what was the prize exactly? Wall Street doesn't produce any wealth itself and certainly not for the English.
2
That's a racist myth, the Lenape were experienced and shrude traders who got a good deal. They got 64 guilders in metal goods, they didn't have metal themselves, pots, pans, axe heads, very useful stuff and in today's money thousands of euros of it for a small piece of land they had hardly any use for because they didn't build sea ports. They were also profitting from the beaver trade, the natives hunted the beavers and came to New Amsterdam to sell them.
1
@ They weren't primitive and they did understand both friendship and trade and they wanted to sell beavers. The concept of legal ownership of land was probabably alien to them because it is a weird concept, it still is, but they must have understood that they got a lot of metal goods all at once for the Dutch building and living on that piece of land. This was also not a static situation, there had been a Dutch presence for years, they learn to understand eachother. first they cherish a gifted axe head by wearing it around their neck, the next time they learn it's more useful if you make a handle for it. The Dutch and the natives made sophisticated treaties too, not necessarily easier to understand for the Dutch. People know and knew when they have a deal, that is universal.
1
The Dutch didn't believe in empire, too expensive and the Dutch Republic had too few poor people left to man it. The British didn't understand lucrative yet, they had to own land to make their king feel important, the Dutch were the modern capitalists who just kept making money off New York as the trade continued, but without having to spend on rule.
1
The British navy wasn't better. The only reason they could match the Dutch was because the shallow Dutch home waters didn't allow for the biggest gun ships.
1
@ Capitalism, the melting pot, freedom of religion, upward social mobility AKA the American dream all come from the Dutch through NYC. Not to mention all the Dutch influence not directly through NYC.
1
@irishemerald7796 You seem pre-occupied with moral judgement to defend the British, which is ironic by itself. I'm not saying the Dutch were morally better towards the colonized, allthough they probably were, I'm saying they were modern and the British were backward and had a very different style of colonialism in that era. The Dutch values of those days were embraced worldwide over the ages, so I guess in that sense they were universally liked, even by the British.
1
@irishemerald7796 The British took over the Cape in 1795 so you tell me what you are sure about precisely. Until the 1870s the Dutch weren't very much about ruling land and it's people, only about ruling the trade routes and their own settlements. So that was not really imperialism as we know it from the British, it's the British that speak of the Dutch empire and not because they know Dutch history better than the Dutch. The Dutch didn't have the man power to rule over lots of land and people and believed it to be too expensive, and those amoral considerations alone saved the locals a lot of suffering. The locals of the Cape weren't black btw, the Khoisan are categorized as Cape Coloured today. The blacks, the Bantu are hardly more indiginous to SA than the Dutch. What happened happened, so what event between 1655 and 1795 you want my moral judgement on? The British even fought the Boers in two wars to establish imperial rule over SA and submitted them after they had fled North to escape British rule, and then turned them into a privileged elite through race laws fitting classic colonial divide and rule with the biggest difference being that the Dutch were from European descent too.
1
This is far too anglocentric. The Dutch were in an 80-year war for independence, Portugal was the enemy, not a competitor. The VOC was founded to take the war overseas, also in the West were the other part of the Iberian enemy Spain was active. By the 1660s Spain had already admitted defeat and finally recognized the independent Dutch Republic, so New Netherland had lost it's initial purpose. Owning and conquering land just for the sake of it, for prestige, was a typical British desire, not a Dutch one. Besides that trade with now New York just could go on and the Dutch living there only suffered a mild regress in rule, it wasn't importanat to the Dutch. The Dutch did more than half of Europe's trade, the English could only somewhat compete in the high risk high reward trade with other continents where guns mattered a lot more than efficiency. For the British the colonial trade was almost the only trade left, for the Dutch the colonial trade was only a tiny cherry on a huge cake, that started for war reasons. Just having for the sake of having so you could name it after some duke was not high on the list of Dutch priorities, spices otoh were not just valuable but also a currency in the trade with Asian nations who were too sophisticated to take an interest in European goods, only in silver. Over 2 thirds of the VOC's trade remained within Asia and the spices where the backbone of a much larger trade.
1
@irishemerald7796 Let me get this straight, we have an anglo video based on anglophonic sources projecting typically British desires and strategies on the Dutch of those times to boast about what great deal these glorious British made and when I point out the Dutch were not like the British I am puffing up my nation's feathers? The British have their feathers so puffed up they can't see more than their own mirror image in other nations at that time.
1