Youtube comments of Lynott Parris (@DenUitvreter).

  1. 3300
  2. 1100
  3. 380
  4. 297
  5. 286
  6. 227
  7. 223
  8. 202
  9. 161
  10. 136
  11. 120
  12. 114
  13. 114
  14. 108
  15. 108
  16. 106
  17. 96
  18. 81
  19. 67
  20. 67
  21. 60
  22. 58
  23. 58
  24. 54
  25. 51
  26. 50
  27. 49
  28. 49
  29. 48
  30. 48
  31. 47
  32. 46
  33. 42
  34. 41
  35. 40
  36. 40
  37. 39
  38. 38
  39. 38
  40. 36
  41. 36
  42. 36
  43. 33
  44. 33
  45. 32
  46. 32
  47. 31
  48. 30
  49. 30
  50. 30
  51. 29
  52. 29
  53. 29
  54. 28
  55. 27
  56. 27
  57.  @dunnowy123  Actually not. It comes from a 450 year old tradition of toleration, not enforcing rules when people don't bother anyone else or when it leads to nothing, the noble art of shrugging shoulders. The full legalization was unchararcteristic and because it got out of hand as both an international business as well as drawing an international crowd. I don't like prostitution as a concept but I do support it not being prosecuted, but somehow I ended up living or having gf near red light districts and not just in Amsterdam. Yes, ordinary people live there too, something tourists tend to forget too. The good thing about it is that there is an honesty about it of consenting adults, in which the women made a decision to make quite a bit of money this way (they are the business owners and employ a 'pimp' for different services like security). What they did not consent to is being in a zoo for your experience. It of course has a lot to with how you behave not partaking, but the partaking or potential to is what makes it equal, symmetric. A bit like a sauna or a nude beach, if you are nude too it's fair, if you are there for paid sex too you are both exposed. So apart from you individual behaviour and attitude, only with it becoming a tourist attraction it got really sleazy and degrading. It functioned for hundreds of years in the shade, in a legal twilight, now overtourism has put it in the spotlight and it's not becoming at all. It's also not fair that Amsterdam has to suffer all of the puritanism and hypocrite governments all over the world by being inspirational to the sexually oppressed. Same with drugs. And then there are the British with their sense of entitlement and not knowing how to get drunk properly despite centuries of experience and binging. It does not work, the Dutch have this freedom because they can handle it, the tourism shows why other people don't have it and can't properly enjoy it.
    27
  58. 26
  59. 26
  60. To be honest I think it's very unfair to have a thoughtful intellectual like Murray matched by someone not speaking her native language and a mediocre brain like Simons. Simons is someone who has, with a Dutch expression, 'fallen upward'. That often happens to the very privileged. In the wake of the economic crisis that hit the Netherlands pretty bad in the eighties most well off kids of her age studied hard to get some serious eduction with good job perspective but often not the most fun and interesting. Simons otoh was primarely concerned with dancing and jazz in the appearently not too deprived school. She quit high school after 3 of the 5 years, worked as a hairdresser shortly but was still allowed on a prestigious ballet school. Great of course, but she had the privilege to make such an uncertain career choice. But it's typical for the chances immigrants get in the Netherlands. Soon after she got famous as a presenter for TMF, an MTV like music network. She was very pretty and fun and she had a good career as a television presenter, usually the commercial low brow stuff. She did a book show once for which she wore glasses, looking even hotter, but she was out of her depth there despite it was a show for the 'popular' books. She wrote columns for the playboy but I never read the articles, but I suspect this had also something to with her looks. Over all those years she has consistently claimed that her skin colour worked to her advantage, and advantages she got, which can't have been surprising to any Dutch at that time. She also made some rather mean comments about black men and relationships in those days which could have been interpreted as racist. Anyway, it was the typical no nonsense assertive hot girl getting ahead in life in the post racial Netherlands of the 90's and 00's. And suddenly she was back as a radio DJ with 'the black list', a radioshow with only music from black people. I'm Dutch and I had never known the idea of 'black music'. I knew about seperate(d) audiences in the US but we never had that, jazz was embraced since the 20's: Almost all modern music is black in origin and played by people of all colours. We grew up with tapes and sleeves often not revealing the skin colour of the musicians. By far the biggest Dutch (language) band in the 80's that even caused a real mania was a ska/reggae band. Motown was also very well know since the 60's and rap hit the ground running. Even my guitar rock was quite black. It's not like 'black' music was ever overlooked and needed some extra attention. Soon after that she did nothing but playing the race card, she became a race card herself. Suddenly the Netherlands was a racist hell hole where non-whites got no chances and she even teamed up with the Turkish Erdogan fan party in the Netherlands because they are (supposed to be) not white. Now she is the princess of wokeness, making a job out of her skin colour and creating an industry of subsidized blackness in a process that oozes tribalism and clientelism of African size, not to say segregation. She's gone mental, entirely fact free and I mean seriously mental. The only explanation for her sudden change into a victim is serious mental issues that require professional help. Is that common among the woke? Do people become woke without mental issues?
    25
  61. 25
  62. 25
  63. 24
  64. 23
  65. 23
  66. 23
  67. 22
  68. 22
  69. 22
  70. 22
  71. 21
  72. 21
  73. 21
  74. 20
  75. 20
  76. 20
  77. 20
  78. 20
  79. 20
  80. 20
  81. 19
  82. 19
  83. 19
  84. 19
  85. 18
  86. 18
  87. 18
  88. 18
  89. 18
  90. 18
  91. 18
  92. 18
  93. 18
  94. 17
  95. 17
  96. 17
  97. 17
  98. 16
  99. 16
  100. 16
  101. 16
  102. 16
  103. The special issue with European and American slavery is the double standards. Most European nations were already centuries past slavery and servitude and started to consider everyone born free (Scottish miners and a few other groups will disagree). So their standards at home didn't apply in their colonies and to the slaves for sale at the African coast and fit for dealing with European and American diseases., which were blacks. So they developped racism as an excuse for the double standards, the hypocrisy. So it does deserve special attention in the history of slavery. Also because the Europeans ended the worldwide slavetrade by force, led by the British Empire. So one might say that the Europeans spread their values over the world but to their own societies and people first. Sometimes their own class first, then all citizens and only centuries later to the rest of the world. Which is not an entirely unreasonable thing to do. The issue now has a Westerner I feel part of the progress made throughout history. Things were really bad in the past, from the Romans to the Dark Ages, and now it's much better and still getting better, and that's 'our' progress, we made it happen. I believe we've got to understand that many Africans or people from African descent don't feel like they have ownership of that progress, because their ancestors were passive in it, subject of it and subjected to it. So they don't see it as a development through time but as a development between Europeans and Africans. For me the colonizers are people from a different age, to them they are people from a different continent just like the current Europeans. And that's not unreasonable either.
    15
  104. 15
  105. 15
  106. 15
  107. 15
  108. 15
  109. 15
  110. 15
  111. 14
  112.  @alexh2947  The English ran, hid and defected. William invited himself and asked the lords to invite him to gain popular support. It was William's propaganda war more than anything, he was a show man. He paraded his massive fleet near the coast for everybody to see, his soldiers were under strict orders to behave well and never ever use the word invasion or conquest, he brought a regiment of black soldiers in whtite turbans to impress as a global empire. He himself rode a white horse (biblical symbolism) in shiny armour and held speaches on protestantism will promising religious tolerance. And he brought a printing press, just to make sure the message of liberation was even spread further. The Dutch Republic had already been a nation state for a century and had an 80-years war, not between kings but between the people of a republic and the Spanish Empire. The Dutch peope were extremely literate and the country extremely well connected by canals with tugboats, they had free press and printed more than half of Europe's books, they were highly experienced in propaganda. Papers, leaflets, satire, books, paintings, cartoons, songs, flags, battle reports, carrots, you name it. They used all that experience to prevent a catholic England that would pose another threat to the Dutch Republic and create a stable protestant ally much more lilke the Dutch Republic. And to great effect, helped by chauvinism and British propaganda in the centuries to follow, the British still believe what was Dutch propaganda.
    14
  113. After coming from Suriname Simons enjoyed the privilege of beeing occupied with jazz dance in a Dutch School, didn't finish school which wasn't of the highest level, worked as a hairdresser, got admitted to a prestigious ballet school and got a job as a VJ for TMF, helped by her undeniable hotness, and then became a more serious television presenter. She even got the chance to do a book show and the glasses made her look even hotter, but despite the show beeing about relatively low brow literature, she was out of her depth. In interviews she described her skin colour as an advantage and made derogatory comments about black men, which would have been racist if they'd come from a white woman. Suddenly, about 10 years ago, she was all about race, having a show about 'black music' on the radio(!). The Dutch of course didn't know 'black music', they know all pop music is black in origin regardless of the looks of the artist performing. And it got worse from there, and very racist. Maybe it's because she's out of her depth or she feels guilty towards so many other blacks in the world that haven't enjoyed her privilege, but I seriously worry it's mixed up with some mental health issue. She has gone into outright hatred for whites now. But if anything her career proves at least one black not so very talented girl got every chance one could wish for in The Netherlands. She has wat we call 'fallen upward'. I always liked her anyway and still do kind of, it's a shame to see her this confused and bitter, while sowing division between black and white the Netherlands has never known.
    14
  114. 14
  115. 14
  116. 14
  117. 14
  118. 13
  119. 13
  120. 13
  121. 13
  122. 13
  123. Orange is a principality in Southern France. William of Orange, AKA William the Silent and not to be confused with William III or Orange who took the throne of Britain over a century later, was as a German noble steward (stadtholder) to the king of Spain for the Netherlands. Then he led the rebellion against that same king because the Dutch, protestant and catholic, wanted religious tolerance instead of the Spanish Inquisition. The colour derived from his name became the symbol of the revolt that would eventually be an 80-year war with Spain and Portugal before they also recognized the Dutch Republic's independence. The stadtholder, steward without a king now, became the leader together with the grand pensionary, not a noble and formerly the position of lawyer to the parliament of the Holland province. Nation states were not a thing yet, Europe was divided in monarchies and even the Dutch didn't know how to go about independent government at first and took 7 years between the declaration of independenc and naming themselves the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. All the symbolism and flags were royal too, so they had to come up with all that nationalist stuff themselves and the colour orange worked great. So that's also why the Dutch have the oldest tricolour and the oldest national anthem. Even the carrots got bred orange to boost national spirit. Later it became a symbol for the Orangists, the pro stadtholder and more national unity republicans, who were opposed by the "Statists" republicans, who didn't want a stadtholder and very autonomous provinces with power in the provincial parliaments (i.e. the parliament of Holland bossing). The Orangists won. The position of stadtholder was only heriditary in the sense that almost only men from the noble Orange-Nassau family were appointed stadtholder by the provinces parliaments or there was no stadtholder appointed at all. The stadtholder would be the commander of the army and in charge of foreign policy. Most of them delivered for the Dutch, some spectacularly well. They are related, but the current Dutch royal family is the product of the Napoleontic occupation and defeat, and the British wanting a buffer monarchy between itself and republican France. So it is a dynasty going back to the 1500's, but not a royal dynasty. They don't deliver for the Dutch anymore either.
    13
  124. 13
  125. 13
  126. 13
  127. 13
  128. 13
  129. 12
  130. This video is entirely wrong on the Dutch monarchy. 1581 was the year of the Dutch declaration of independence, stating that a ruler had to serve his people and king Philip II of Spain had left the throne of the Netherlands by being a tyrant with his religious prosectution (the freedom to believe what you want was already codified in 1579) and denied the absolute rule of kings, the right of kings to determine how to believe in god, and the divine right of kings. This DOI materially was very much like the American DOI from 200 years later which was inspired on it. This led to the Dutch Republic that would feed Europe with new ideas for the coming centuries. The Oranges were often appointed Stadtholder (steward) by the states, it was an office of the Dutch Republic, not a hereditary title, the Oranges were princes but not from the Netherlands, they were princes of . At the height of the Dutch Republic's power, there was no Stadtholder but the son of humble woodstacker was in charge as kind of a prime-minister. The Netherlands only became a kingdom in 1806, when Napoleon made his brother Louis king after conquering the Netherlands. After Napoleon was beaten the then allmighty British Empire decided it needed a buffer state between France, and a buffer monarchy against republicanism. The Dutch, who ironically had given the UK today's constitutional monarchy by invading England in 1688, got an absolute monarchy from the British in return, the family picked was related to the Stadtholders. This of course didn't work with the republican traditions, and the Netherlands became a constitutional monarchy a couple of decades later, also Belgium split off as an seperate country again, as it was seperate during the Dutch Republic. This is of course very important to the historical significance and the possibilities for abolishment of the monarchy. Some say it's still a republic, but so tolerant it even tolerates a monarchy. It's also allows for an inbetween, we could go back to the Dutch Republic, and appoint a member of the now royal family as Stadtholder. We could keep the fun bits like the to be renamed king's day, and it's important bits like a family link with the past, a highly regarded figurehead in trade relations, and an important office that's not marred by day to day politics and political interests. We can also ditch the first born principle, and together with the Orange family select the most fitting and willing candidate. It would also allow for stopping them from being too greedy, and make sure the powers they have and don't have are formalized better. The poor research is really a shame. English sources often get Dutch history wrong, but the Dutch Republic is well documented even in English and the English wikipedia gets most things right.
    12
  131. Feit is dat de bevolkingssamenstelling bewust en opzettelijk veranderd wordt door beleid. Dat beleid zou in het belang van het Nederlandse volk moeten zijn want dat is het volk wat de regering moet dienen, niet de mensen die hier graag willen komen wonen. Dat is niet, vanwege het tekort aan van alles maar vooral woningen. De woningbouwverenigingshuizen en de volkswijken worden feitelijk wel omgevolkt of zijn dat al. Dan zijn dat vaak ook nog mensen die niet gewoon Nederlander willen worden maar inderdaad sterke gelijkenissen met kolonisten vertonen. Wat Rudy Bouma weer handig verzwijgt is namelijk de derde en inmiddels vierde generatie niet Westerse achtergrond, wiens voorgrond vaak ook niet erg Westers is. Voor een groot deel daarvan geldt dat het Nederlandse volk niet met hun immigratie gediend was. Ook verzwijgt hij dat niet alleen het geboortecijfer telt, maar ook het geboortecijfer per tijd. Als nu het meest en strengst islamitische deel van die tweede of derde generatie moslimimmigranten jong aan kinderen begint dan produceren die 3 generaties in dezelfde tijd als de autochtonen 2 nieuwe generaties produceren, en dan ook nog in aantallen dat het gemiddelde omhoog trekt waarschijnlijk. Dan gaat het hard met de groei van de conservatie moslimgemeenschap. Het ideaal van massa-immigratie is al dubieus, zeker in zo'n druk land, maar gaat uit van het idee dat achtergrond verwatert en men zich mengt, tussen de lakens dus. Dat gebeurt met veel moslims niet, die maken geen kinderen met niet moslims maar vaak met neef of nicht, en het moederland doet zijn uiterste best om te zorgen dat hun migratie achtergrond ook hun voorland blijft. Dus sippendrager van de macht houdt hier alweer een leuk maar niet zo eerlijk verhaaltje over wat iets niet is, maar niet wat het wel is. Hij doet zijn uiterste best om extreem rechts erbij te slepen en komt met sussende teksten, maar hoe het Nederlandse volk met dit beleid van massa-immigratie gediend zou zijn legt hij dan weer niet uit.
    12
  132. 12
  133. 12
  134. 12
  135. 12
  136. 12
  137. 12
  138. 12
  139. 12
  140. 12
  141. The Dutch population isn't growing, the number of foreign settlers is growing with about 300k every year. So demand isn't adressed, it's out of control. Stop allowing people in for one year and the shortage would be solved. Government didn't ask universities to stop taking foreign students, they asked them to stop actively acquistioning them. It's out of control too because refuses to take control of it's universities and for example use those to educate the Dutch well and not ruining student culture, the Dutch language and general education levels. The farmland is not the government's property, and the idea that you can just allocate that land to yoga studio's, housing of expat ICT workers or refugees on welfare is in denial of the fact in an economy the secondary, tertiary and quarternary sector sit upon the primary sector. Housing is also private, even social housing is property of private non profit associations. But goverment has appropriated those to house 'refugees', not from the wars in Germany, Belgium or even Ukraine, but people who crossed several safe countries to get such a house, by letting the surpass the waiting lists of between 8 and 23 years. It's not that agriculture shouldn't change, but the Dutch government is taking land, housing and education from the Dutch to give it to foreigners, abusing the welcoming and tolerant nature of the Dutch and demanding them to work harder to accomodate them. If you are a teacher, your job becomes much harder with every child who is not a native speaker. So the problem is much more fundamental. Dutch government is breaking the social contract, the foundation beneath democracy, the Dutch declared in 1581 that government should serve it's people and fought an 80-year war for that. Now this government is serving people from all around the world and serving many corporata interests, but not the Dutch.
    11
  142. 11
  143. 11
  144. 11
  145. 11
  146. 11
  147. 11
  148. 11
  149. 11
  150. 11
  151. 11
  152. 11
  153. 11
  154. 11
  155. 11
  156. 10
  157. 10
  158. 10
  159. 10
  160. 10
  161. 10
  162. 10
  163. 10
  164. 10
  165. 10
  166. 10
  167. 10
  168. 10
  169. 10
  170. 10
  171. 10
  172. 10
  173. 10
  174. 10
  175. 10
  176. 10
  177. 10
  178. 10
  179. 10
  180. 10
  181. 9
  182. 9
  183. 9
  184. 9
  185. 9
  186. 9
  187. 9
  188. 9
  189.  @EconomicsExplained  The current leading party may call themselves 'liberalen' they aren't even in Dutch and it can't be translated to liberals. It's the conservative party although quite Dutch on social issues. Basically the aim of all their policies has been to shift money from those who work for it to those who own for it, whether it's real estate or stock or whatever. They have been very much involved in housing policy since the 80's with the aim above, and especially getting money to banks. You said 'government makes sure banks get their money back' but that's actually not the case because with the mortgage the money is instantly created and given to the bank. This has fuelled the financial sector for competition in the international markets. Every square meter of the Netherlands is claimed so with cheap money available and shortage of homes house prices have quadrupled between 1990 and 2010 and would have doubled in the last decade if it wasn't for the financial crisis. That policy including tax policy. This has of course increased the wealth gap but also effectively the income gap because the lowest income 20% tends to pay much more in rent for a small house than the over 100k's in mortgage and other house costs, even in social housing. There's a bit left of social security and goverment paid education but that's not where the taxes go these days. The total of all kinds of taxes and collective costs has only increased in comparison to more social governments of the past with far better social security and it's at record high of just over 50%. Presents and breaks for huge international corporations don't come for free I guess. There's good industry in the Netherlands, allthough per hour productivity is in decline which should be extremely worrying. The financial sector is not really industry of course, they might be really busy but they're not in the business of producing anything, just skimming off other people's productivity. And Could you stop obsessing over the VOC? It was a rather insignificant part of the 17th century Dutch economy. It's much more likely Heineken's wife's money came from the herring fishing, one of the many industries, investment in polders (farmland), the North Sea trade, the Mediterranean trade or the Baltic Sea trade. Especially the latter dwarfed the VOC.
    9
  190. 9
  191. 9
  192. Well, England was back to it's old absolutist ways when the Dutch Republic invaded in 1688 and put it's first citizen, the Stadtholder, on the throne, and gave it it's parliamentary monarchy that still exists today, it's Bill of rights and the subsequent modernization of the English economy allowed for Britain to take over from the Dutch Republic as the supreme economic power. Basically the English got the rights the Dutch had already enjoyed since they declared independence more than a century earlier. Freedom of religion, freedom of print, seperation of judiciary and executive power. Allthough being appointed as Stadtholder by a parliament of commoners, William III had his own claim to the English throne through marriage, he was a noble, it was Dutch parliament who gave him the fleet and army. He played it well and avoided bloodshed, but an invastion and occupation it was. The Magna Charta was early, but the rights people enjoyed in the Low Lands (Keure van Kortenberg for example), including today's Belgium, were much more extensive, especially for the commoners. The Dutch parliament was already dominated by commoners in 1500's with the rise of the merchant class. Not by coincidence it was the Dutch Republic that started modern capitalism too. It was because of the fight against the absolute monarchies with their catholicism and religious intolerance that forced the Dutch Republic to free Britain from that, otherwise it would have been 1.5 million Dutch of mixed religion against 50 million catholics from France, Spain and Britain. So by invading Britain they got a powerfull ally, which naturally through it's size, modernization and the causes of the advantage of the Dutch being copied, took over as the world's superpower. Also because capitalists as the Dutch were, their enourmous wealth went just as easily into shares of British companies. The big change for the world came in 1581, when the Dutch rebels claimed inalianable rights to remove a tyrant (ring any bells?), king Philip II of Spain, and freedom to serve god according to one's own conscience. From there it spread, through the invasion of England in 1688, but also through philosphers working freely in the Netherlands (Locke, Descartes, Spinoza) and books printed in the Netherlands to France and it's thinkers.
    9
  193. 9
  194. 9
  195. 9
  196. 9
  197. 9
  198. 9
  199. 9
  200. 9
  201. 9
  202. 9
  203. 9
  204. 8
  205. 8
  206. 8
  207. 8
  208. 8
  209. 8
  210. 8
  211. 8
  212.  @kamanashiskar9203  The UK went to rule the world because it took over most of what gave the Dutch such an advantage throughout the 17th century, modern capitalism (William founded the Bank of England), social mobility, all kinds freedoms and combined that with their medieval desire to rule which the Dutch never cared much for. With a population 4 times the size of the Dutch Republic the Dutch couldn't stay richer than the British and it was through money mostly that the small Dutch Republic could compete with far bigger countries. Nontheless, Napoleon got extremely lucky invading the Dutch Republic. Foreign invaders could take a lot of the country as they had done before, but Holland was protected by the Hollandic waterline, a system of inundation that would make wading armies sitting ducks and was too shallow for ships. Housing in the area had to be of wood so they could be burned down to clear the shooting lines. With Holland and Zeeland not taken, the navy would be able to retalliate and shipping would feed the people. There was an extreme cold and the Dutch couldn't keep up breaking the ice, so the French troops marched over the ice into Holland. So until the aircraft technology of WWII the Netherlands was pretty capable of not beeing taken, rather than defending all of it's borders. One the reasons it managed to stay neutral during WW1. But the Dutch Republic had been in decline since the 18th century and was left empoverished after Napoleon was beaten, the Dutch did more than half of all Europe's trade in the 17th century and had some pretty proto-industrialization, neither was going to last as a huge advantage because competitors catch up and couldn't be matched in size. The UK was calling the shots at that time with France beaten and Germany not unified. It was an ally but not really a good one. The Dutch gave the UK it's constitutional monarchy and the favor was returned by forcing an absolute king upon the Dutch. Luckily that was corrected within decades into a constitutional monarchy, but The Netherlands is still stuck with a royal house that is way too royal for it's republican past.
    8
  213. 8
  214. 8
  215. In addition. Stadtholder was a public office William was appointed in, not a heridatery title. His title as prince of Orange, a small principality in Southern-France, isn't very relevant, nor the fact that most states/provinces had a preference for appointing Oranges as stadtholder. So William was not only the product of a republic and used to sharing power, his enemy was catholic absolutism. The catholic absolute ruler Louis XIV was the main threat to the Dutch Republic, there were these German bishops in the East and with a catholic absolute monarch in England it would be the 1672, the disaster year, all over again soon. So he had England somewhat modelled after the Dutch Republic using existing structures and it's very unlikely parliament's demands surprised him. He sought political and popular support to avoid civil war and a chance for an absolute catholic in England again. He advertised himself carefully with is troops on strict orders to behave well, spending in the local economy well and speaking well, and of course he didn't bring a printing press with is invasion for nothing. He was on a campaign to win the hearts and minds of the English. What he did in England wasn't very different from what his great grandfather William of Orange (the Silent) did a century before what resulted in the Dutch Republic: Unite the people and the nobility behind the idea that a king can't be a tyrant but has to serve the people, that the people have freedom of conscience (i.e. religious tolerance) and can keep their ancient rights like the Great Privilege and the Charter of Kortenberg, which gave especially common people more rights than the Magna Charta. So basically he exported the Dutch anti-absolute values in which protestantism (and trade, science and arts) could flourish to keep the Dutch Republic safe and succeeded because he played the English well. In the process he also set up England to take over from the Dutch Republic as the supreme power and the wealthiest nation. But it saved the Dutch Republic from beeing taken over by the joined English and French absolute catholic rulers James II and Louis XIV, and therefore no one has to expect the Spanish Inquisition anymore. Quite an achievement.
    8
  216. 8
  217. 8
  218. 8
  219. 8
  220. 8
  221. 8
  222. 8
  223. 8
  224. 8
  225. 8
  226. 8
  227. 8
  228. 8
  229. 8
  230. 8
  231. 8
  232. 8
  233. 8
  234. 8
  235. 8
  236. 8
  237. 8
  238. 8
  239. 7
  240. 7
  241. 7
  242. 7
  243. 7
  244. 7
  245. 7
  246. 7
  247. 7
  248. 7
  249. 7
  250. 7
  251. 7
  252. 7
  253. 7
  254. 7
  255. 7
  256. 7
  257. 7
  258. 7
  259. 7
  260. 7
  261. - Manhattan wasn't bought for 24 dollars, it was traded for 60 guilders worth of goods. In 1626 that would buy a merchant quite a load of iron axe heads, which were very useful to the natives who didn't have iron tools.10.000 guilders would buy you a magnificent house in Amsterdam in those days, which was by far the richest and most expenisve city in the world. They might have had a different view of private property of land, which is indeed a dubious concept, but they weren't stupid. They were very competent traders and walked in and out of New Amsterdam to trade too. The Dutch weren't stupid either, they knew there was much more money to be made from a durable good trade relation than robbing land like the still feudal English, French and Spanish used to do. The 24 dollar myth is just very poor historiography by anglophones projecting their own land stealing colonialism on the Dutch, who were no saints either and got worse later on in history, but mostly had a very different approach. They were only in it for the money and the independence war against Spain, and had little desire to rule a lot of land or people. - The foundation of the incredibly diverse multiculturial experience that is NYC today was already laid by the Dutch. New Amsterdan hasn't been anything else than multicultural, multireligious and multiracial because the Dutch Republic didn't have enough (poor) people to man their huge merchant fleet and settlements. -'Bronck's land' was most likely named after a settler in the Dutch settlement, but multicultural as is was it might have been a Swede, allhough names like Bronk, Bronck and Bronckhorst are not uncommon Dutch names today.
    7
  262. 7
  263. 7
  264. 7
  265. 7
  266. 7
  267. 7
  268. 7
  269. 7
  270. Jongens, jullie zijn hier echt te dom voor. Te dom ja, de juridische kennis en begrip om uitspraken te doen zoals jullie doen ontbreekt ook, maar wat het zo dom maakt is dat jullie wel denken eventjes een bepaling uit het strafrecht te kunnen duiden omdat jullie een internetverbinding hebben die een bepaling te voorschijn tovert. Jullie weten niet wat de rechtsstaat is. De rechtsstaat is niet de rechtshandhaving door justitie, het is het beginsel dat elk overheidsoptreden is gegrondvest en beperkt door het recht. De rechtsstaat is dus slechts in zoverre in het geding dat bijvoorbeeld het OM, wat een overheidsorgaan is, zich niet aan de wet houdt. Jullie vertrouwen in de rechterlijke macht inclusief het OM is blind. Omdat het om Nederland gaat zouden die boven elke twijfel verheven zijn? Advocaten en rechtsgeleerden klagen al jaren steen en been over de spelletjes die het OM speelt en het gebrek aan rechtmatigheid daarvan, en niet alleen Weski. De rechters maken zich daar makkelijk vanaf en delen een sneer uit aan Weski omdat het ze allemaal te ingewikkeld werd. Zou het met rechterlijke dwaling, op dwaling, op dwaling, op dwaling van de rechters en blunder, op blunder, op blunder op blunder van het OM misschien zo kunnen zijn dat we wel topadvocaten hebben, maar geen toprechters, geen topofficieren van justitie en topstrafrechtspraak? Was dat al in jullie hoofdjes opgekomen of zijn jullie helemaal niet kritisch maar vooral autoriteitsgevoelig? Kruiperig zelfs? De vergelijking met De Brauw slaat natuurlijk helemaal nergens op. Ten eerste is grootte en geld geen maat van topadvocatuur, dat jullie moeten bedelen om geld omdat jullie zo kut zijn wil nog niet zeggen dat iedereen die goed verdiend ook meteen top is. De Brauw zit in een hele andere tak van sport, en daar is veel meer werk in meer in te verdienen omdat de meeste mensen zich niet bezig houden met criminele activiteiten om geld te verdienen, maar wel juridisch advies nodig hebben, en heel soms zelfs een rechtszaak. Ik ga niet op al jullie gestuntel in, het zou aandoenlijk zijn als het niet zo tenenkrommend was. Er zou een kanaal moeten zijn dat de snijtafel op de snijtafel legt, en dan niet zulk stomp gereedschap heeft. Maar om alle symptomen van het Dunning-Kruger effect in deze video te bespreken zou het een video van 3 uur moeten worden, en ook daar zit niemand op te wacht. Stop er maar mee. Het idee van de Snijtafel is leuk, en misschien kunnen jullie nog eens een simpel songtekstje aan, maar zelfs bij het bespreken van een programma als Jinek blijken twee scherpere geesten vereist.
    7
  271. 7
  272. 7
  273. 7
  274. 7
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 6
  285. 6
  286. 6
  287. No, I don't agree, he was appointed by the States, the parliaments of the Dutch provinces consisting of commoners. It was the States-general that paid for his invasion army and fleet, and the goal for both the States-General and William was not to annex England or have him rule like a medieval king, but to make England into a durable, stable protestant religious tolerant ally. That's why he asked to be invited and waged a propaganda war to get popular and nobility support. This was to prevent a catholic absolutist English king being treacherous again and teaming up in secret with catholic absolutist Louis XIV and German bishopries to annihilate the Dutch Republic like in 1672 when they came very close. He was somewhat king like because he was competent, had vision and had build a huge network in foreign relations, so the States let him. There also was no 'countercommoner' (William was a noble), a higly competent well respected figure leading the States like Stadtholder Maurits had decades before. The 'Statists' side with it's disregerad for heridatery posiitons had taken a heavy blow in 1672 because it made Holland to powerful over the other provinces and neglected land defenses there in the preceeding 'Stadtholderless Era'. William stepped in, took command of the army, flooded large parts of the country and kicked the French troops out, he saved the Dutch Republic from annihilation, catholic rule and mass murder of the protestants. The Stadtholder used to be the high command of the army and unifying force, while the commoners in charge of the Dutch Republic were all about Holland, trade and the navy. Holland was protected over land by the Hollandic waterline, a system of defenses by flooding area's. He was a rich man in an extremely rich Dutch Republic and showing off more than other rich Dutch people, in a royal style and he had a court like entourage. He once complained he felt like king of the Dutch Republic and Stadtholder of England because the English parliament was slowing his policies down while the Dutch States gave him more room to manouver. He might look like a king now, but that's because he changed what a king is through that glorious invasion, he created the constitutional monarchy. Back then, kings had the divine right of kings, denounce by the Dutch in their DOI more than a century before, they were king by birth and were absolute monarchs who decided on the religion of their people. Originally the Stadtholder was a steward to the king appointed by the king, and became a steward to the States appointed by the States once the king was declared to have left the throne for being a tyrant.
    6
  288. 6
  289. 6
  290. 6
  291. 6
  292. 6
  293. 6
  294. 6
  295. 6
  296. 6
  297. 6
  298. 6
  299. 6
  300. 6
  301. 6
  302. 6
  303. 6
  304. 6
  305. 6
  306. 6
  307. 6
  308. 6
  309. 6
  310. 6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. 6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. Those major powers did attack several times, even together, but mostly failed. Partly because it was in the time war was fought by mercenaries and the Dutch were rich so their small population didn't matter. It was one of the powerful countries itself. It also had the best sailors, the navy was compromised, big gun ships had too much drought for the shallow home waters but that was compensated for with tactics. Als the West part of the country with it's ports could be and was protected by flooding the surrounding farm fields. That protected the Netherlands until the aircraft technology of WWII. Napoleon's invasion succeeded because it was an exceptionally harsh winter and the flooded area froze over quicker than the Dutch could break the ice. The Dutch Republic was the biggest economic power for over a century because it dominated all European trade, they basically took over the Hanseatic League with their industrialized ship building en the early modern capitalists, no one could compete. The spice trade was tiny in comparison. Actually the VOC, the "Dutch East India Company" started out to defend against the most powerful country in Europe, the trade financing the military presence to fight the Portuguese, who were part of the Spanish Empire. The Dutch Republic was the first modern country basically, and shaped the world through it's capitalism and freedom to fit it's own geography. But as an Amercian you probably learned European history from the English, who like to pretend they were always first in everything and at the centre of everything. Not in the 17th and 16th century they were.
    6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. Excellent video but by now primary sources have shown that William contacted the 7 lords and asked to be invited, while the States-general had already an invasion fleet build and was assembling an army. William knew of the English sensitivities of being invaded and being ruled by a foreigner, and since it was a stable ally he was after, and threw all the propaganda tricks known from the 80-years independence war at the English people. The invitation was only one those, his soldiers were forbidden to use words like invasion or conquest, he called himself liberator, he rode a white horse in shiny armour, he brought a regiment of black soldiers in white turbands to impress as a world power, he held speeches, he promised religious tolerance for the catholics. He also brought John Locke over from the Dutch Republic where he had lived and written his important works. Het actually acompanied Mary on the crossing. So revolution is a bit of a stretch, to put it nicely, but the product of the propaganda of it's day and after. The idea of parliament picking a king to serve the people was not complete in the sense that the legitimacy had to be claimed ot mary's blood line and only could because the legitimate king had left, it also wasn't that radical anymore. The Dutch Republic originated from the idea that a monarch should lead and protect the people like a shepard his sheep, respect their inalienable rights like the freedom of conscience (of how to serve god and therefore freedom of religion) and that a legitimate monarch that trampled those rights and the ancient rights and privileges of the cities (including managing religious affairs as a matter of public order) was a tyrant to be removed. It's all in the Dutch DOI of 1581, which isn't as catchy a read as the American DOI but very similar in substance. This infringement on the divine right of kings by the Dutch had not lead to god's wrath, on the contrary, the Dutch Republic had faired extremely well since, of course money and guns talk and the Dutch Republic was by far the richest country. The stadtholders of the Orange family gave the European monarchies nobility to talk to instead of just a republican peasant like DeWitt, while it didn't challenge the concept of European monarchy directly nor did they betray the system of bloodlines by claiming to be king themselves. So it had been a bit of a balancing act in the century before.
    6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 5
  333. 5
  334. 5
  335. 5
  336. 5
  337. 5
  338. 5
  339. 5
  340. 5
  341. 5
  342. 5
  343. 5
  344.  @EmeraldMara85  Very interesting but he East India Company you are referring to is English, not Dutch. The Dutch East India company is of course not called an English name, it's often called that because the British and Americans can't handle more than one language, but it's name is "De Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie" or VOC. The Dutch colonial empire is not some miniature version of the British empire, it wasn't even an empire and certainly not for the first 300 years. The British might have appropriated the 17th century, they were just a backward feudal and mercantilist bunch of poor classist violent people stuck in the Middle Ages until the Dutch invaded and cleaned up. The Dutch were the inventors of modern capitalis, the Dutch were a republic and had no king wanting an empire and didn't have the feudal reflex to have more land and control peoplle , the Dutch wanted free trade on the open seas, the Dutch were only with 1.5 million people and didn't have the man power to rule lots of land and people. "Empire is too expensive". They were traders, the country was run by merchants and it was in a defensive existential war with Spain and Portugal first, and with France, Britain and parts of Germany later. That is the background of the Dutch colonial cirmes. Not grabbing serious land, but monopolizing trade routes with a few strongholds and forced monopolization of certain trade goods. That's also why the Dutch were allowed in Japan and the others weren't. That's why I wrote what I wrote, this shallowness this dumbing down of history by the video. The colonial era is shaped by both capitalism, beginning with the Dutch, and feudalism and mercantilism from the backward countries among the colonial powers, and is has been shaped by wars among them. But Harris in his eagerness to show what a good person he is by telling how bad the Europeans are, ignores all this complexity and the differences to make it simplistic.
    5
  345. 5
  346. 5
  347. 5
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. Piet Hein for example is also interesting because he represents a few new idea's of that time just like WIC and the government of the Dutch Republic did. Just like the whole board and particularly it's main founder Willem Usselincx he was a stern calvinist to whom allthough religious tolerant catholicism and therefore Spain was an existential threat to be fought with war and trade. In this Dutch protestantism all people were children of god and therefore slavery was a barbaric practice of these evil catholics. In the Dutch declaration of independence it was explicitly not being treated as slaves that was a main argument. He also believed it was terribly unfair that natives everywhere got caught up in these European wars. He also represented the Dutch Republic becoming more meritocratic. The still very well known celebration song states "Piet Hein, Piet Hein, zijn naam is klein zijn dade benne groot. His name is small his deeds are great. Small name refers to him not being a noble or even from a rich merchant family, but just an ordinary guy and obviously the people liked that enough to put it in the song. The bitter irony is that the money was not only used for the siege of 's-Hertogenbosch but also for a WIC campaignagainst the Spanish alliy Portugal. Johan Maurits conquered what was to be named Dutch Brazil and became governor. He was probably one of the most enlightened men of his time, he fall madly in love with Brazil, he shipped in painters and botanists to study it, he wanted to build an university there and he called the native converted to protestantism the true Brazilian. But he also wrote the WIC board that he couldn't run that Portuguese plantation colony without oxes and blacks. So in 1637 he asked and got permission to get slaves and he captured the slave fort of Elmina on the African coast from the Portuguese too, today's Ghana. His permission to practice slavery was conditional, free after 7 years and teach them in protestantism. But the colony was lost soon after, and the slave fort was not and great relationships with the selling Ashanti were established. Peace with Spain and Portugal was signed in 1648 so no more privateering, the agricultural settlements of good protestants in today's New York state weren't much of a success either because life in the Dutch Republic itself was just to good and rich, so there wasn't much to do for the WIC other than shipping slaves to mostly the foreign plantation colonies and industrializing the triangular transatlantic slave trade in the process. They were even the biggest Atlantic slavetraders for a short while until the English copied them but through better understanding of hygiene managed to keep more slaves alive giving them the competitive edge. Piet Hein didn't live to see how terribly that had evolved but Ussellincx did and went to Sweden desillusioned.
    5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. Had nothing to do with muslims. The Dutch always respected the local religions and the Indonesian nationalism also had nothing to do with islam. I might be a shock to many muslims, but it is actually possible to respect other people's religion even when you're in power. Ironically, the Indonesian nationalists sided with the fascist Japanese. And after the Japanese were beaten they claimed to be ready for independence and showed this by going on a slaughter of everybody that was not pure blooded Indonesian. About 30.000 whites, mixed race and Chinese were murdered because of their skin colour. This was the reason for the Dutch military action. That was successfull, they had almost full control back and the slaughter of innocent civilians had stopped, but the christian American government forced the Dutch to move out to have Indonesian independence immediately rather than let the Dutch take their time, who had already decided upon eventual Indonesian independence decades earlier. The USA wanted to end colonialism to make way for their neocolonialism, same exploitation, but without the responsibilities. So the Dutch had a racist slaughter by the Germans, no, not on their way to France (why keep people making this bullsit up?), then a racist slaughter by the Japanese and then a racist slaughter by the Javanese. The Javenese subseqeuntly colonized the Moluccas and Papua New Guinea, where the people still rather have the Dutch in charge. Still, nothing to do with muslims whatsoever, other than that thanks to the Dutch legacy, Indonesai is the only muslim majority country with freedom of relgion.
    5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373. 5
  374.  @tripleceven  I don't. India? I believe they had some trading posts there but you know the East India in the English term 'Dutch East India company' refers to today's Indonesia? Small parts of Indonesia had an unusual degree of Dutch control but in general they let the ruling and committing of atrocities to the local rulers. There was the Banda-Atjeh massacre of course, the Bandanese broke a (probably unfair) deal, ambushed a few Dutch and beheaded them, and the Dutch retaliated killing 1200. The Dutch believed empire was too expensive. They had no desire for empire and didn't have the manpower for it. They couldn't even run their trade fleet with Dutch sailors, the VOC (Dutch East India company) mostly did inter Asian trade and often more than half of the crew was Asian, got paid the same as the Dutch and other Europeans. You should also not project the balance of power of the British Empire on the 1600's when the Brits still needed the Dutch to save them from catholic absolutism and feudalism. With guns that only had a chance of wounding someone within 5 meters they couldn't just conquer a part of mighty empires in India or China. They had to make sure they sent the right people with diplomatic skills. It's not like the people in India with their silk clothes and fine manners were impressed by 30 sweaty smelly Dutch sea peasants. The Dutch colonization of Indonesia actually only happened in the late 1900's and early 20th century, because profitting from the cruelty of the local rulers didn't fit the Dutch self image so they had to take control and 'civilize' the whole country, in a condascending way of course. Dutch history isn't plagued with trade, it's the history of modern trade. They did more than half of Europe's trade, that where they got stinking rich from, and they created a global trade network with Amsterdam as the main hub where you could buy anything from over the whole world. The Dutch very well knew you could only rob people once while you could keep returning profit from a solid trade relationship, a fair or unfair one. That's why they were the only ones allowed in Japan. They didn't let race get in the way of profit just like they didn't let class get in the way like the European kingdoms with their feudal mindset. The Dutch were the modern capitalists, with their republic, freedoms, religious tolerance, civil rights, equality and social mobility. The Dutch did their own crimes and atrocities and you can judge those by a fair historical standard, but they had a different kind of empire than the other European colonial powers resulting in far fewer atrocities and more trade and more profits. They were in a rather lengthy and important war for independence and freedom of religion and most of the Dutch violence was at the expense of the Spanish, Portuguese, sometimes English and French, and the Ottoman empire and the Barbary pirates. When the Dutch took over a settlement from the other Europeans, often the Portuguese, this usually was an improvement for the locals.
    5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. 5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. Anglocentric distortion. It was all about the European trade for the Dutch, the volumes and the number of ships were a 100 times bigger. That's were the saw middel and the modern capitalism with it's low interests and reliable money mattered. In the high riks high reward trade with gunships with the Far East even the English could compete. They seem to think European trade was replaced by global trade there, but they simply couldn't compete in the week in week out bulk shipping where the real money was. The VOC didn't start the Golden Age, it only payed it's first dividend in 1633, 60 years into the Dutch Golden Age. It was a niche market, the Ottoman's had blocked the silk road and the Portuguese enemy blocked Lisbon to the Dutch, so spices where hard to get hold of and prices soared. Dutch parliament got involved to fight the Portuguese enemy in the independence war. Only once established over there, the Dutch saw much more possibilities and profit was reinvested. The often very ordinary shareholders of the VOC from all over the Dutch Republic (it was also a nationalistic entreprise for the young nation state) couldn't wait for dividend that long, so the stock exchange came about and the carpenters and maids could cash in as the merchants rich enough to wait out the VOC's growth could buy their shares for generational wealth. Still it remained a tiny cherry on a huge cake, and the Dutch remained the world's greatest sea trader until the 1790s, thanks to it's dominance of the European trade.
    5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. 5
  393.  @changingmyself  All those things are related, no probs. If the word nationalism is hijacked by people who mean something else, something dubious, than there has to be another word for the political stance that a national government is the product of a national democracy and should act in the national interests, i.e. the people of the country. That also means national power over international corporations for example, they might even force them to pay tax. I'm not an American and not even a native speaker of English, but it seams odd to me that when in fact the world is organized in nation states to use the word nation in a tribal way. It's only fair to refer to the different native American groups as nations but that's not how the world is organized anymore. The six nations is a rugby tournement with France, England, Wales etc. Nation of islam is not a nation, because it's about religion. White nationalism is not about nation either, because it's about race. We already have words for things that are not a nation like religion and race. These days a lot of people take the benefits of the nation state for granted while attacking it. It's extremely radical to discard the nation, as it is at the core of modern Western civilizatioin. You're born somewhere and therefore into a social contract with the others that were born there and the state as an organization. Not because of your blood but because of the soil you were born on. That soil is within borders, because you need borders for jurisdiction. Only within borders things like citizenship, democracy, rule of law and organized education and infrastructure are possible. It is only within borders governments can do good things like that facilitates the pursuit of happiness for it's people. It's when governments start to rule outside their borders when bad things happen. There can't be environmental regulation or labour laws without a nation on a territory. You can't be inclusive without also aknowledging that people are excluded from your social contract and have their own connected to a different territory with a different government. If that government does a worst job and they want to migrate that's a matter of mutual agreement. Migration can't be limitless for numerical reasons and people have to keep trying to make their own nation and government work better. If you say Mexicans are native to the America's, which is not true btw, and white Americans should go back to Europe, you make it about blood again, instead of soil. It's a natural right to be able to live where you wore born, the right to live somewhore because of your race isn't nationalist, it's NaZi. As an American you are enjoying the benefits of two centuries of nationalism. Others don't enjoy the same benefits from their nation but if you believe that's a reason to discard the concept of nation states, that will lead to no one enjoying the benefits of a nation state.
    5
  394. 5
  395. 5
  396. 5
  397. 5
  398. 5
  399. 5
  400. 5
  401.  @nosop3  Ik heb nog een tip. Hou eens op met je geschiedvervalsinkjes. Nederland was niet een van de laatste landen die de slavernij afschafte, Nederland zat in de Europese middengroep en was daarmee een van de eerdere landen die de slavernij afschafte. Nederland was er vroeg bij met het afschaffen van de slavenhandel in 1815. De Ghanezen, Nigerianen etc moesten met het nodige wapengekletter overtuigd worden en de Arabieren waren pas rond 1960 zo ver, en zijn nog steeds niet helemaal overtuigd. Er is niet altijd verzet geweest tegen de slavernij. Er zijn altijd slaven geweest die zichzelf wilden bevrijden, om dan soms zelf slavenhouder te worden, maar dat is wat anders. De golf van eind 18e eeuw had veel te maken met de ideeen van de Franse revolutie en de Europese hypocrisie, het meten met twee maten tov de kolonien. Beide volkomen terecht natuurlijk, maar laten we niet doen alsof elke slavenopstand of ontsnapping uit morele verontwaardiging over de slavernij voortkwam. Wist je trouwens dat de bedenker van Zwarte Piet ook bij die clubs hoorde die probeerden de slavernij te stoppen? Die antislavernij activisten en antiracisten mochten dan het hart op de juiste plek hebben, paternalistisch en neerbuigend waren ze vaak nog wel. Je kunt wel voor een grachtenpand gaan staan en doen alsof die rijkdom alsof die van de slavernij komt, maar dat is niet waar. Ook niet van de VOC trouwens, het grote geld werd verdiend met gewone Europese bulkhandel waarvan de Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provincien meer dan de helft deed met zijn 1.5 miljoen inwoners, hout, laken, graan, zout, dat soort dingen. Op geen enkel moment in de geschiedenis bracht de VOC meer op dan de Nederlandse haringvisserij en de WIC was al helemaal geen financieel succes. Je vergeet even te vermelden dat de WIC in eerste instantie helemaal niets van de slavernij moest hebben, dat was een katholieke misdaad. Tot de verovering van Nederlands-Brazilie op Portugal, het was namelijk oorlog, was de WIC een slavenbevrijder met echte zeehelden als Piet Hein die er zelf ook nog menigeen heeft bevrijd. Dat is natuurlijk lastig als je de geesten rijp probeert te maken voor herstelbetalingen. Ik ben op zich niet tegen het concept, maar als je niet concreet vermogenssschade bij levende mensen kunt aanwijzen krijg je de bizarre situatie dat mensen wiens voorvaderen nooit aan slavernij hebben gedaan en wiens familie soms nog wel dwangarbeid in Duitsland heeft gedaan, geld moeten betalen aan mensen waarbij de kans veel groter is dat hun voorvaderen aan slavernij hebben gedaan, namelijk zwarte Nederlanders. En dat alleen omdat de een blank is en de ander zwart. Terwijl natuurlijk juist de nazaten van de Nederlandse slavernij de mazzel hebben dat ze daardoor in Nederland kunnen wonen. In vrijheid, wat ze ook weer te danken hebben aan de Nederlandse Gouden Eeuw en het winnen van de 80-jarige oorlog. Niet alleen dat je niet op de brandstapel komt omdat je op de verkeerde manier in god gelooft, maar ook het idee van sociale mobiliteit, dat je een achterstand mag inlopen en niet bij je geboorte veroordeeld bent tot een onderklasse, is een verworvenheid uit de Nederlandse Gouden Eeuw. Dus misschien kunnen we de rekening doorsturen naar Spanje?
    5
  402.  @Ned-nw6ge  That 5% is as far as join the hype academics managed to stretch it, by not beeing very scientific. They didn't just pick the 'best' year late in the 18th century in dire times to suggest something about Dutch wealth that originated in the 16th and 17th century, they also counted all the products made by French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and American slave plantations that were traded or shipped by Dutch as Dutch income, which of course it isn't. Then the totall GDP of all the countries wouldn't add up and the value of a ship of suger in a Dutch harbour is much more valuable than that same sugar at a harbour in the Carribean. So it's another nonsense calculation to make a headline. The saddest thing about Dutch slavery is probably that they could have done without, economically but also in the war effort against Spain and Portugal. After the WIC gave up on it's objections to slavery it became a big player within decades, but the English copied the Dutch and took over soon, after which the WIC went bankrupt. After that Suriname wasn't really a cashcow either, they did quite a bit of investment like digging a nework of canals, of course slaves did most of the digging, but ROI was very disappointing. Slavery just isn't a very good economical model, slaves aren't spending consumers creating growth, and you can't sack them when there is no work like free poor people but have to spend on their housing and food. The Dutch were already filthy rich in the 1630's before they went into the slavetrade, and became quite poor after the Napoleontic occupation and after the German occupation again, and they got very rich again while the colonies and former colonies only costing money.
    5
  403. 5
  404. 4
  405. 4
  406. 4
  407. 4
  408. 4
  409. 4
  410. 4
  411. 4
  412. 4
  413. 4
  414. 4
  415. 4
  416. 4
  417. 4
  418.  @malaskomen9204  That's the point, the Dutch weren't allowed to give Indonesia independence in it's own time, but the Javanese and US American neocolonialists wanted the pie for themselves. People are responsible for their own mindset. The Dutch weren't unreasonable at that point in time, Suriname and the Antilles were decolonized in a much more peaceful and orderly fashion, they got a lot of money, still get money and relations are good. The Indonesian nationalists had a chance to split as friends but they refused. That's that then. The decision to not get compensation is already made many decades ago. We see that all around the former colonial world, people demanding independence, rightly so by itself, we want it all and we want it now, and yes we can do it all ourselves and succeed in this world shaped by nation states, capitalism and otherwise the West. OK good luck, and now they failed, messed up or are disappointed by the result they start moaning about the West again. That's not fair, you got the deal you wanted, deal with it. No, the post colonial land of milk and honey with an easy life for everyone didn/t happen, what a bummer. I don't like colonialism or neocolonialism, and I acknowledge the suffering the Dutch caused in Indonesia or were complicit to. But damage to today's Indonesia? The railways, the hospitals, the schools? The freedom religion, pretty unique for a muslim majority country? The coffee industry? Even Indonesia itself as a unit is a Dutch inheretance, Indonesia didn't exist. You could of course go back to the way it was before the Dutch (and Portuguese) arrived, or even before the Arabs arrived. It's the choice of the people. Europeans think differently, they think in terms of progress because they made that happen. Looking back it was always worse, terrible even, everywhere. Life on earth has never been better than in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Disease, massacre, natural disasters, torture, genocide, hunger, slaver even with far less people it was worse, but especially since the 1500's it has improved fast, and steadily faster, for basically everyone.
    4
  419. 4
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. 4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. 4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. 4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. 4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450.  @dylanvogler2165  I hope you pay more attention studying history than you do reading my posts, because I didn't write anything like that. The claim in the comment topping this thread that slavery wasn't mention in school in the past is simply false, ignorant and arrogant. We were always taught about the dark pages, but they stuck to the facts, teachers didn't feel the need to express their disgust, and what a good person they were, by making stuff up and make it look worse, or make it far more important than all the other horrible stuff of the old days. The king no longer being able to chop of heads and tell people what and how to believe was the point of the whole war that the Dutch Repuclic took the Portuguese and Spanish colonies in the first place. I do know better what the education on Dutch history was like, because I got it. But for this generation the Dutch 20th century does not appear to exist. They seem to believe it was like 1930's Alabama here. That's no coincidence because this whole slavery and colonialism thing as central to history and the modern day is the product of importing American activism with an American narrative, this whole comment section is loaded with examples. Historians, teachers, politicians, museums media are all groveling, they do their professional equivalent of a plantation reenactment for whites with chains and all. It flagellation and submission to the American narrative, a competition of who can express his disgust the strongest and make up the worst narratives. If that trend of the past decade escaped you, you weren't doing your job very well. I've read a few books since my school days btw, but I still remember very well what me and my generation learned in school. Our perspective was indeed that the past was generally far more bad, but also when that past was and how an when things changed for the better. It's not like we were waiting for a more poorly educated and shallow generation who believe they can know the 20th century from the internet, allthough only becoming a source 3 years before the end of it. If you willfully stay ignorant about the past, you can always be the first, congratulations.
    4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. 4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. 4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. 4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488.  @Rowlph8888  Why do you think English history has had the most impact on the world? After a bit back and forth England was back to absolute rule again, and then the Dutch Republic invaded. The Dutch Republic that had codified the freedom of conscience and therefore religious toleranc in 1579 in what was to become it's de facto constitution. In 1581 It had declared the people had inalienable rights and a monarch had to serve the people, denouncing the divine right of kings, and claimed the people's right to no longer recognize it's monarch when he had become a tyrant. This was the place where the parliaments were made up of commoners, there was upward social mobility, servants nor wives could be beaten, the home originated and besides men like Spinoza, Descartes John Locke could freely live and write on his social contract, inspired by his surroundings. After which he accompagnied Mary to England for her coronation and the signing of the bill of rights. This was also the republic that founded New York and introduced reglious tolerance, multiculturalism and upward social mobilty to the America's, from which the USA later used the Dutch DOi of 1581 as a blueprint. These values were not carried by law, but on one hand by the freedom of the printing press there letting the enlightenment ideas spread of Europe, on the onder hand by the modern capitalism it had invented too, the commercial success and therefore strength. So it changed London and New York directly, and Paris indirectly into places with individual freedom as we know it now, so without having to stay in your class, in the position god, king and nobility had decided for one. The term 'glorious revolution' might give the impression it was a process from within, but that came about because being invaded was already a sensitive subject back then. It's no coincidence the breakdown of the feudal structures that had been there for ages came from the LowLands, including Flanders at first, because feudalism was based on land and didn't work with so much water around. The modern society had been brewing there for ages only waiting for the printing press and protestantism to explode over the globe.
    4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. A overview of the naming and the related history. It's not short, I'm afraid the Netherlands as a lot of history. - The Netherlands (meaning low lands) was the name of the area including today's Belgium which was part of the Spanish Habsburg Empire. - In 1581 7 of the 18 Netherlands declared independence from Spain under the leadership of William of Orange because they preferred religious freedom over the Spanish Inquisition and became the Republic of the 7 United Netherlands (the American DOI is actually very similar to that Dutch one the founding fathers studied). Because this was the first modern nation state, it had to come up with a national anthem, a national flag (rather than royal flags), non royal leaders and orange carrots. So they showed France the way. - The Dutch Republic as it was know in English was quite a success. It did more than half of all European trade and mostly with ships from the Holland part, so that name spread the most. The British also made the name Dutch exclusive to the Netherdutch, the Middle Dutch and the High Dutch, the Germans upstream, still call themselves Deutschland though. - In the late 1700's the Dutch Republic was fading on the world stage and under influence of what was brewing in France became the Batavian Republic in 1795. - Napoleon, as a result of the French revolution occupies the Netherlands and makes the republic into a monarchy ironically. So in 1806 Royaume d'Hollande, the only time Holland was used in an official capacity since Napoleon was only interested in the money and Holland had a reputation for that despite the decline. His brother Louis was made king, but he was actually a very good king given the circumstances, he was enligthened and loved the Dutch, the Dutch loved him back and Napoleon sacked him. - Napoleon was beaten, the Netherlands was bankrupt, Britain wanted a buffer monarchy in front of France and after 233 year of seperation the Northern Netherlands were reunited with what is now Belgium to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands. There was still a member of the Orange Nassau family haning out in Germany and he became king Willem I. - The Northern Dutch and the 'Belgians' had grown apart in those 233 years of seperation and the Belgians revolted and split off in 1830, supported by the British. The Northern Netherlands kept the name Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Southerners took the latinized name for all of the Netherlands, "Belgica", and became the Kingdom of Belgium for which the British appointed a German noble as king. There was some stuff with Limburg and Luxemburg I don't really know enough about, but this is about the situation that remained until today.
    4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500.  @sunnya4310  You don't understand the concept of trade. You buy something from somewhere and bring it to a place where demand and price are higher. The Dutch excelled at that, so despite having quite an industry themselves, they shipped a lot between other countries. In the mid 1600's the Dutch had more merchant ships than the rest of Europe combined. The absolutelely dominated the Baltic Sea trade, which was huge because allthough far less rich than the Dutch Republic, Northern Europe from Flanders to Sweden, Denmark, Poland to Estonia and Russia was doing well. They also dominated the North Sea trade and they were the biggest player in the Mediterranean allthough that was quite a hostile sea with the Spanish, Ottamans and Barbary pirates there. And they still owned the herring trade of course, which was highly nutritious and the Dutch knew how to preserve it, the foundation of early economic success and financial innovation in the 14th and 15th century. At no point in history the entire Dutch East India company was bigger or more profitable than just the herring trade. The VOC was unjustly glorified in the 19th century for political, nationalistic reasons, and also in the 17th century it captured the imagination, but in fact was only a tiny part of the economy of the Dutch Republic, somewhere under 1%. The VOC was more the product of Dutch wealth than the cause, as the Baltic Sea was saturated with Dutch ships so merchants were looking for new endeavours and among it's first shareholders there were rich merchants, but also bakers, butchers and maids that put their savings in. The Dutch were the first free people and free market capitalist in a mercantilistic and feudal world, they had the first big spending middle class, of course they were much richer than any other country and all kinds of industries emerged. Ordinary craftsman wouldn't buy Rembrandts but they would buy paintings and more than half of all Europe's books were printed in the Netherlands, especially the controversial ones.
    4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 3
  505. I'm afraid you got it the wrong way around. The Dutch Republic changed the world, and spices were just one of the things they traded in. It was an important part of the global trade allthough the VOC shipped all kinds of stuff from and in between China, Japan, India, Persia and what's now Indonesia, mainly in between actually, but global trade was very small compared to European trade. It was the European trade, mostly bulk goods, that they dominated and that made the Dutch Republic extremely rich and powerful enough to shape the modern world with it's religious tolerance, capitalism, upward social mobility, civil rights and governments having to serve their people. -The Dutch government got involved in the VOC to take the 80-years war (for independence) to the Spanish Empire's earnings overseas. - It was a public company all over the country as a nationalistic war enterprise when the first nation state was forming by lack of a king, who was ousted for being a tyrant, in a still raging war. - What the English ate was not relevant to the Dutch spice trade because the Dutch ate much better than the rest of Europe which was much poorer. And it was not the nobles but the wealthy Dutch middle class who consumed the spices, which got much cheaper anyway after the VOC took over. - The VOC wanted to grow, and the often ordinary shareholders didn't want to wait for dividend, hence the stock exchange. The VOC managed not to pay the legally obliged dividends for the first 31 years. - For a single company the VOC was big, but with less than 200 merchant ships at it's peak, it was less than 1% of the Dutch merchant fleet. Global trade was far smaller back then compared to the European trade the Dutch dominated. -The VOC traded much more than spices, and actually did far more of it's trade within Asia than to and from Europe. - The VOC didn't conquer much. They were Dutch traders, not British imperialists. Banda was an exception rather than the rule. They preferred smooth and profitable over bloody and costly, with ruined relations, and the Moghuls, Chinese, Japanese and Persians were easily up to the crappy guns of that time, they often had to grovel. That's also why they weren't a very deadly company at the bottom line. - The VOC only had a monopoly East of the Cape, the WIC on the Americas and the much bigger European trade was done by tenth of thousands of small companies or individuals. - JP Coen had a massacre followed by ethnic cleansing, but it wasn't genocide. - He got reprimanded by the board, after his report took a year on a ship, and the answer a year to get back, but they were happy with the result too. - The Dutch were hypocrite rather than indifferent. They refused to get into the Transatlantic slavery until the late 1630's because that was something those evil catholic Spaniards did. Double standards for overseas were developped over decades. - Coen was a stern calvinist, believing he was doing god's work in defending the Dutch Republic against the catholics. - His statue has had a text explaining he was a human rights violater since the 80's, and even when the statue was erected in his hometown in the late 1800's, an era of VOC glorification for a number of national reasons, there was lots of opposition. - The statue thing is mostly imported by kids without historical knowledge copying the USA, they do have a point with Coen allthough it already has been adressed long ago, but the other statues they have targetted makes it very silly. - No, the Transatlantic slavetrade didn't spiral into kidnapping and conquest for the simple reason that Europeans couldn't get inland without shortening their life expectancy to 11 months through diseases. That's an American myth, to avoid other uncomfortable truths. Slaves were for sale at the coast, enslaved by Africans.
    3
  506. 3
  507. 3
  508. 3
  509.  @EJavierPaniaguaLaconich  The Dutch Republic actually went to the far East and the America's to take their war for independence against the Spanish Empire, including Portugal, to them and to the seas. But you can't wage war that far away without a network of harbours and refreshment so you need a trade network to support that presence. That's what they did the first decades, simply trade and rob the enemy ships (and free the slaves that were on it). The Portuguese went to Asia themselves because the Turks were their enemy and blocked the silk road in the Levant. So their whole chain of trade in Asian goodies would collapse if they didn't, just like the Dutch Northern European trade in Asian goodies would collapsed when Portugal joined the Spanish Empire and closed off it's harbours to Dutch ships. So if it wasn't for war, the trade would simply have been trade like it used to be with no one colonized and the Europeans also getting filthy rich. Most colonization happened because European kingdoms and a republic were at war with eachother or feared war with eachother. Settlements were needed for the trade anyway, they had to make sure ships could get water and food, but also served to monopolize the trade against their European enemies. Of course this monopolization did not make the locals get the best price. It wasn't really that profitable, the Dutch West Indies company went bankrupt several times, but got government financed again because of geopolitical interests. The VOC (East Indies) was more successful but they actually used today's Indonesia for the trade with Japan, China an India which they had no power over at all. They had to bow, bring presents and leave the gunship escort on the open sea to get a chance to trade. So if it's the colonial oppression that was profitable, why did they only take such a tiny part of Indonesia and didn't they leave Japan and China alone? Exotic goods were rare, and they were profitable because they were taken halfway round the world to people with money. The profit comes from getting it to the right place, the shipping, not from the production. Most of the VOC's trade was within Asia, they simply were better at trading and traded between India, China, Japan and Persia and earned a profit with that.
    3
  510. 3
  511. 3
  512. 3
  513. 3
  514. 3
  515. 3
  516. This fashionabe self hate is a historian unworthy. No, it wasn't all pretty, but genocide? No. 5.2% is anonsense calcution, equally fashionable. Peak VOC, a lot bigger financial success than the WIC, was never more profitable than the herring industry and the Dutch Republic (already a guiding nation, relgious tolerance, upward social mobility, equality, interracial marriages, freedom of conscience, thought and print, lot's of women's liberties) got rich from European trade. The whole colonial enterprise was peanuts and allthough colonial crime happened, most of that was about regular trade too. Most slaves shipped by the Dutch went the other colonial powers colonies, the Dutch were never big in the plantations. Suriname was handed independence, togehther with a huge some of money especially because of slavery, which was squandered by the Surinamese government. The Netherlands was the only occupied country that went on strike against deportatations, and has by far the most people who risked their lives to hide jews. But ylou of course, with your cowardly confirmist and fashionable version of history would have stood up spoken out, be tortured and get shot, just to make a point and become one of the 200.000 gentile Dutch war deaths. Yeah right. The Dutch by then weren't particularly ruthless anymore in Indonesia since the late 1800's, the guerilla war got dirty indeed, as they always do, but the slaughter of tens of thousands of non pure blooded Indonesians, whites, mixed race and Chinese, by the Indonesian nationalists was a bit of an issue as you can imagine. You know very well Zwarte Piet wasn't an issue at all until 2011, when the false comparisons with American blackface begun, you know very well Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas were and are celebrated in the former colonies in the same way by the black people there too.
    3
  517. 3
  518. 3
  519. 3
  520. 3
  521. 3
  522. 3
  523. 3
  524. 3
  525. The VOC had 140 merchant ships, around 1650 the entire Dutch merchant fleet consisted of about 20.000 ships, so that's 0,7% of the Dutch sea trade of that time. Sea trade was a huge part of the Dutch economy, but just a part. So it's fair to say that the VOC was never more than 0.5% of the Dutch Republic's economy. But the Dutch Republic's economy was huge, the world was poor but the Dutch were extremely rich. So the VOC's part of the world economy might have been over 0.1% at it's peak. It wasn't in a time before proper economics existed, the VOC was a result of 'proper economics' taking off. At the VOC's peak, it was still significantly smaller than the Dutch herring trade of that time. It's turnover and profit was dwarfed by the Baltic Sea trade in particular, the 'mothernegotion', and the Dutch trade on the North Sea and Mediterranean. But they weren't organized in one company because there was no military necessity and the routes were shorter and safer. At the time of the foundation of the VOC the Dutch Republic wasn't a colony of Spain anymore, it was an independent republic for about 30 years and was already extremely wealthy. The kings of Spain, France, Germany and England beeing in denial doesn't change the factual situation. Many shareholders of the VOC were normal people, craftsmen, bakers, maids who had savings to invest as the records show. It wasn't an insignifacnt power either, it's just that the Spanish, French, British and Germans didn't understand yet what power was to be about in the late 16th and 17th century: trade, not land. Armies were for rent and the Dutch general Maurice of Nassau developped 'modern' warfare in the last decades of the 16th century to get and keep the Spanish out, well before the VOC. The historical importance is political and military because it was part of the war effort, a globalized war effort, to remain independent and keep freedom of religion, speech and press while showing Europe that absolute monarchy isn't the way to go. Also stocks were something new but related to other banking innovations, and the shareholder model was also used to create farmland by pumping water out around the same time, the Beemsterpolder. The VOC's economic value was very modest. So these anglo YT-video's should stop obsessing about the VOC, and start taking an interest in the Dutch Republic, much more interesting and truly a turning point in history. Not just economic history.
    3
  526. Dit ging duidelijk boven jullie pet. De grond in grondwet staat voor de grondslag van de staat, die als rechtsstaat in wettten en regelingen is vervat, het is een instructie voor organen van de staat inclusief regering en parlement als wetgevers. Maar de grondwet kent ook burgers fundamentele rechten toe, en instrueert de staat zich van inbreuken te onthouden en die is dan ook de normadressaat van de grondwet. Dat noemen we grondrechten en daarvan zijn twee soorten, de klassieke en de sociale. De klassieke komen er op neer dat de staat iets niet mag doen, de sociale dat de staat zich er wel om bekommert. Maar driekwart van de grondwet gaat niet over grondrechten. Niks cirkelredenering dus, gewoon gebrek aan begrijpend lezen en achtergrondkennis. De rechter mag en moet wel degelijk aan de grondwet toetsen, maar alleen de formele wet goedgekeurd door TK en aan de grondwet getoetst door de EK niet, alle lagere wet en regelgeving wel. Het discriminatieverbod betreft dus ook alleen de overheid, en hoewel ideologisch geformuleerd gaat het wel om gelijke gevallen gelijk beoordelen en ongelijke gevallen naarmate van hun ongelijkheid. Dus dan komt het verschil tussen het aangeboren ras en de gekozen religie er al snel verschillend uit. Overigens wordt ook levensbeschouwing gelijkgesteld aan religie, dus dat is dan wel weer interessant. Plassterk had helemaal gelijk, want de grondwetgever wilde niet alleen die duurzame brede overeenstemming, die wild grondwetswijzigingen ook aan de kiezer voorleggen. Daarom moeten er verkiezingen tussenzitten, en dat kun dus niet met twee verkiezingen ertussen. Kandidaten moeten de gelegenheid hebben de verkiezing in te gaan met "als wij genoeg stemmen krijgen, 1/3e dus, dan gaat de grondwetswijziging niet door." De verdragen en besluiten betreffen ieder verbindende bepalingen, daar lazen jullie maar weer overheen, en daar bestaan verdragen doorgaans niet uit, noch geven die vaak de bevoegdheid dergelijke besluiten te nemen aan internationale organisaties. Dat is namelijk nogal snel in strijd met diezelfde grondwet. Een verdrag dat strijdigheid met de grondwet oplevert kan alleen met dezelfde gekwalificeerde meerderheid worden goedgekeurd, maar dat gebeurt niet. Niettemin is het een probleem aangezien veel politiek actoren de democratie willen omzeilen en via verdragen technocratisch willen regeren. En dat lukt, mede dankzij het niet zo onafhankelijke EHRM, antidemocratische kamermeerderheden, grondwetnegerende kamermeerderheden, een politieke RvS, de EU, en rechters in het algemeen die de democratisch geratificeerde teksten steeds vaker los laten om een eigen afweging te maken. We hebben effectief dan ook geen grondrechten meer over, want via het leerstuk van de botsende grondrechten dat ook niet van een democratisch verkozen wetgever/verdragsluiter komt, wordt een grondrecht al snel iets waarvan de staat/rechter af moest blijven tot iets onderworpen aan diens afweging. De rechters maken steeds meer zelf algemene regels naar aanleiding van een individueel geval ipv de algemene regel van de wetgever daarop toe te passen, daarmee zijn het de rechters die op de stoel van de wetgever gaan zitten als onverkozenen en de machtenscheiding aan hun laars lappen. Dit gevaar komt niet van Baudet, maar van de politici van D66/VVD, RenewEUrope, de EU technocraten, de NGOs, de door farmaceuten gefinancierde WHO. Allemaal zo'n moeizaam bereikt onderhandelingsresultaat dat ons parlement eigenlijk niet meer terug kan nadat het tot dan toe geheimgehouden onderhandelingsresultaat krijgt te zien. Allemaal goedbedoeld natuurlijk, maar in vele lagen van regels ben je dan uiteindelijk een stuk democratie en een paar grondrechten kwijt. Kijk naar CETA, kijk naar het verdrag van Lissabon, en kijk vooral naar het debat met Pia Dijkstra over de WHO verdragen en huiver.
    3
  527. 3
  528. 3
  529. 3
  530. 3
  531. 3
  532. 3
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. 3
  545. 3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. Nothing honest about your 'facts'. The Dutch didn't enslave any Africans, they bought them pre-enslaved by other Africans. Dutch who did enslave Africans themselves ended up in jail. It weren't 1.7 million, they shipped about 550.000, most to other European colonizers btw. This certainly did not represent 40% of Dutch wealth at any point in time and especially not today. This is probably some African economics that came up with that percentage, but the whole colonial enterprise, including all slavery was less than 1% even at it's peak, and the East Asian colonies were much more profitable than the transantlantic. The Dutch, with only 1.5 million people, did more than half of all European shipping. That's how they were filthy rich before any involvement with the Atlantic slavetrade. They were piss poor after being looted by France in the early 1800's, and got filthy rich again with the slave trade abolished immediately after the French occupation. Then they got plundered and destroyed by Nazi Germany, and got filthy rich again in 75 years since, without even colonies and with the former colonies only costing a lot of money (yes 'reparations' have already been paid). It's this ignorance and begging mentality that keeps Africa poor. You can't be a significant part of any economy when your labour is hardly worth anything. Whether that's cutting sugar cane as a slave, picking cacao beans as a free African in an independent African country, or digging for cobalt as a child. Anyone can do that, and the raw material isn't worth much. So you better look at what the Dutch did besides slavery and colonization and what they really got rich from, you might learn something.
    3
  559. 3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563. 3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585.  @gustaveliasson5395  I don't know, the 2CV is relatively safe in collision with another 2CV, traffic would probably be a lot safer if everybody drove a car like that. Of course it's not's clean enough for a modern car. * If you want it up to modern standards you would have to go watercooled. Not only much heavier and requiring space for a radiator, you would also have to install a heater, as the engine doubles up as the heater. It's a 2 cylinder boxer so you would lose space by mounting it transversally. * Airbags add weight. * With it's arcs it's already very sturdy for it's weight, so not very sturdy. You know the roof is retractable to save weight? Crumple zones add weight too. Let's say you'd all do that, it would add 150 kilo at least. That would require heavier construction of the chassis, suspension, springs, dampers brakes, bigger engine, axles, gears, more fuel consumption so bigger tank, bigger wheels, adding another 50 kilo at least. The steering will get heavier, is there space for a bigger steering wheel or do you want to add power steering too? That's what sports car makers have to deal with too, once you add weight you have to keep adding weight to deal with the added weight. So the 500kg car becomes a 700kg car, with that high center of gravity. It will roll even moren. Will it fall over now? Will it still be comfortable? Does that unique suspension even work with that weight? Maybe, but certainly not as well. So I stand by my opinion that it's great within this window and won't work if you go outside. You should check the Citroen Oli concept. It's a prototype of an electric car partly based on the same kind of thinking. Simplicity, weight saving and practicality. But it's a 1000kg car in this day and age because of how cars have improved in passive safety and clean engines.
    3
  586. 3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. 3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616.  @easymoneycresus  That was the whole point, the descendants of slaves are just as lucky I was being born here. It's the descendants of the enslavers that have the short end of the stick now. One of what I consider backward ideas in African culture is this thinking in terms of race and continent rather than in time and progress. I don't care some of the greatest civilizations didn't come from Europe, but Europeans were the ones taking care of it's legacy and it's the latest European civilization that has become global. The Yoruba, Bantu or KhoiKhoi have as much or even less to do with ancient Egypt as the Dutch, but you want to claim that for a certain race through a distant geographical connection that goes beyond race. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. I don't transfer technologies because they are not mine and they are valuable, and you will have them stolen by the Chinese. All the Europeans with good intentions have to deal with forces much greater than them too. In the late 20th century there was the genuine idea of helping Africa, but by now it's becoming clear we are incompetent in making Africa progress. So we shouldn't make promises we can't keep anymore because we don't have the power and the competence. Intentions are only worth so much. African poltics didn't help either. They claimed to be ready for independence, everything would get much better, and now they failed they blame Europeans again. And why don't you have you own technologies? What you don't understand is that the past 150 years you've seen Europe's friendly side, soft side even. What did we get for that? Ungrateful beggars for money and technology. Refugees from bloody conflict and genocide that have to be fed and housed, often for life. Illegal invaders, crime, overpopulation, making China more powerful, racism and tough talk. It's not like we're not capable of acting like the Arabs and the Chinese. We could also sink all the boats with Africans trying to invade, we could shoot all the people trying to get across the border illegally and deport all illegal Africans, dump them somewhere in Africa. We don't, because we're still playing nice. But now we have Africans being triumphant about it, like they conquered Europe. No, they took advantage of people being nice, people valuing African lives more than the Africans, and there's a limit to that.
    3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. This video is full of shit. - There was no hundreds of years of Dutch colonial rule. There was hundreds of years of colonization as in settlements, that's different. The Dutch didn't do empire. You confusion is just not knowing the facts. - It was the VOC, it his known as the Dutch East India company by anglophones who can only understand things through British 'equivalents'. - It's main purpose was to take what would become the 80-years war overseas to the Portuguese and Spanish. Had a hot spike up your but for not being a good catholic recently? No? That's because that war was won by the Dutch. - The stock exchange is from 1611, because the VOC wanted to reinvest instead of paying dividend, and many of the initial investors were very ordinary people who didn't want to wait decades for ROI. - The Dutch were relgiious tolerant, unlike the others, they weren't killing people for believing in the wrong god, they accepted local customs and law, and were basically just traders and capitalist with a ony a bit of colonial crime on the side. - The VOC was nationalized, after bankruptcy, in 1795, not in 1800. - No, not over the course of the 18th century. There was a fundamental switch of policy and only around in the very late 19th century, to leave the net profit policy, rule the entire archipeloga themselves and civilize the people, for eventual independence. So when WWII broke out, there had only a been a few decades of Dutch rule in most of it including it's school building. - There was no chicken and egg problem, there was a problem of very few schools build yet. - Inlander just means indiginous or non-coastal. Of course the Dutch new they were all different. There's nothing paradoxal about that. The Paradox is with the Javanese nationalists claiming them all with their islands. - The Dutch reasserted control, which was necessary, because the Javanese nationalists showed they were ready for independence by mass killings of anybody not pure blooded inlander, whites, mixed race, Chinese, they were killend in racist slaughter by the tens of thousands. The Dutch were forced to accept premature independence by the USA, which of course wanted to end all European colonial rule so it could itself exploit the world VOC style. Indirectly, through local rule, with respect to culture and religion, but with their own language and violence when necessary, lots more of it.
    3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655.  @Yvolve  No, 1200 Bandanese men were killed, the rest of the tiny population was shipped out to prevent future resistance. This was a retalliation for the slaughter of a Dutch crew a few years before. It was a mass slaughter followed by ethnic cleansing, so no genocide. Primary sources are ignored here to replace them with estimates to make it look worse. Otherwise the most famous atrocity in Dutch colonial history of 1621 wouldn't be bad enough I guess. History classes have been the product of reflection on our own history since at least the 1960s, but people like to import foreign issues and project them on the Netherlands so because the USA had to review it's history only far more recently, we had to do that all over again and of course even more negative. This is also used to sell the mass immigration of people who have nothing to do with our colonial history. It's the desecendents of far bigger slavetraders and imperialists from Africa and the Midddle East that make Russian tourists feel unsafe and litter more. The motive wasn't primarily financial either. The fate of the natives was collateral damage in the 80-years war fought across the oceans. The tiny Dutch Republic was existentially threatened by Spain and Portugal, England, France and parts of Germany, sometimes many of them together, and the Barbary and the Ottomans were enemies too. All in all the Dutch were the good guys of that age, if you appreciate freedom of religion, free trade, international law, upward social mobility, civil rights, capitalism, freedom of expression etc. you have to be grateful the Dutch Republic held up in that wild world because that is where the values come from the Dutch colonial past is now judged by. There are dark pages in Dutch history, but the Dutch Republic was still a beacon of light in very dark times.
    3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. I think McDonalds was very smart to market it first in the Netherlands and I assume France to teenagers. They liked something new and Murican, they are always hungry and not very picky on taste (France) and especially being around other teenagers and no chance to encounter their parents or their parents friends there. Now it's a family restaurant here too, but that took 20 years and the teenagers growing up. The work culture was still too much for me though, very hierarchical, uniformed and we were supposed to look up to the McDonalds university and the assistent 2nd floor manager. That simply did not work for a to be very well educated Dutch youngster wanting a job to make a buck after school with Latin and Greek. Amazon is getting through a bit here finally, but just like Ebay they simply weren't the first. The Netherlands has had great internet througout the whole country since the late 90's. The alternative webshop and 'auction' sites were already very well established and Amazon and Ebay weren't improvements. 'Wendy's' was already taken by a single diner named after the owners daughter or something. So that name was taken for the whole Benelux. The big Wendy's simply didn't take his claim to that name serious enough and pissed of the owner, and money only matters when both are willing to negotiate. Courts ruled in favour of the single diner in a very straight forward decision that didn't bankrupt the owner in legal fees. A cultural issue I gueess in how money is not seen as all determining.
    3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709.  @lokischeissmessiah5749  I was just saying that the idea that global trade took over from the Hanse (hanseatic league is an English pleonasm) was anglocentric nonsense, as well as the idea that nayvy superiority was the same as naval dominance. That wasn't relevant anyway because at the end of the 17th century Britain and the Dutch Republic were united in their rule as one can phrase it to not offend any Brtish in their toxic chauvinism. I don't claim British success was done to one man alone, Dutch parliament paid for the fleet and the army, getting all that money together from the Dutch was no small feat and it was not done because they liked the Britis so much but because of the existential threat France posed when it would ally with the English again. The English never protested anything, not even being declared protestant by their king, they were heading for absolutist catholic rule, had never known freedom of religion and print, didn't do free trade but war, had no central banking and was uncompetitive, that all changed just after the Dutch invasion. After which the Dutch had more opportunity to get ROI and got caught up in wars less so that is not what caused the decline. The Dutch Republic kept having a similar GDP to the UK, despite having only a 5th to a 4th of the population. There was no such thing as the Dutch East India Company, that is projection of the East India Company onto a Dutch organization, it's not a translation and it doesn't describe it well either since it had little business in India. It's most infamous human rights violation is still the retalliation killing of 1200 Bandanese men in 1621, I'm pretty sure the British can top that. Everywhere the British took over things got worse very quickly for the natives or non whites, New York, Cape Town, Ghana. Culture relevance, again you seem not to know a lot and short sighted. You just take it all for granted or assume it's British in origin out of ignorance. Capitalism, upward social mobility, equality, the nuclear family home, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, all Dutch. You really want to move into art territory? Art about regular citizens and for regular citizens came from the Netherlands, while the British kept painting nobles, nobles horses and nobles dogs. Don't start these chauvinist far pissing contests, you're not equipped for that, I know what the British have told themselves and have no clue about the French contribution to the Industrial revolution.
    3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 2
  716.  @perfectallycromulent  It's also important to keep in mind who discovered them and how. Especially on YT it's by people who don't have acces to the primary sources and the most relevant secondary sources because they only speak English. The British were pretty impressed with the VOC back then because they encoutered it a lot. They didn't encounter the bulk of the Dutch merchant fleet because they couldn't compete in the Baltic and the rest of Europe. So they tend to make the VOC much bigger than it was. There's even a YT video about how the VOC was big in shipping tulips. That's a matter of 'I know only two things about the Dutch Republic so they must be related' , if they get the republic part right that is. More serious historians and even YT-video's are also limited to English sources and we have to realize that historiography used to be propagandistic for very long and objectivity and neutrality only became paramount in the 20th century (to disappear in the 21st century again?), and still the British were quite poor at that. But because of the nature of English, it's hardly ever percieved as the limitation it is by English speakers, they appear to assume all there is to know is available in English. This particular atrocity was a massacre followed by ethnic cleansing as a retalliation to the Bandanese being not very nice either. This is an interesting story but in the history of human conflict, 1200 killed in a conflict is a minor affair, no matter how atrocious it was. It's not like 'how did the world not know about that? How could we have forgotten?" There have been tenth of thousands massacres on that scale and many much bigger, it's the fabric of history. Yes, it should be taught in Dutch schools and it is because it's a significant part of Dutch history, but too small an event to be an important part of world history. It can be interesting in a bigger context or story, but that doesn't make it 'forgotten' like this should have been known widely.
    2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. Actually Locke wasn't that original. He wrote most of his stuff living in the Dutch Republic. The Dutch had already decided a 100 years before that: - There was no divine right of kings - A king had to serve his people and respect their natural and ancient rights - One of those rights was freedom of conscience and therefore religious tolerance - If a monarch did not respect those rights and had become a tyrant, the people had the right to no longer recognize the king and get him out. So Locke was already living in the product of very similar ideas about people and the state he is said to have fathered. Of course he deserves credit for writing it all down properly and refining it a little, but he was also a hands on philosopher. He was part of the conspriracy to invade England and replace the absolutist catholic monarch with a protestant constitutional monarchy with a bill of rights, religious tolerance and freedom of thought and press. He even accompanied William of Orange's wife and future queen to England after William had occupied London. William was prince of Orange but his power as head of the Dutch Republic came from his election to stadtholder, a public office, not from the small principality in Southern France he inhereted. For reasons of stability, legitimacy in the light of the underlying philosophies and peace, it was presented as a liberation/revolution and an act of the English people rather than the invasion it in fact was. William had planned it brilliantly as a propaganda campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people that there was hardly any fighting in England. But he came with a fleet larger than the Spanish Armada and 40.000 troops.Lock's writings were further legitimation after the fact of the invasion/liberation/"Glorious Revolution by the Dutch Republic. This also explains why the American Declaration of Independence is materially almost a copy of the Dutch DOI of 1581, het Plakaat van Verlatinghe or Act of Abjuration. The British constitutional monarchy is the odd one out in between for British reasons of legitimacy and William didn't mind playing king either. He was not a devote republican, for him it was about the threat of absolute catholic monarchs to protestantism, freedom and the Dutch Republic.
    2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. No, he lacks depth of knowledge. He confuses how the system worked for the past decade(s) with the system. The system is very open and can made to work in different ways depending on how the majority wants it to work. - The PM is primus inter pares legally, he only has as smuch power and influence as the house and the other cabinet ministers hand him. - The PM does not have to do foreign affairs. We have a minister for that, and in the past we've had a real heavy weight there who had as much international influence and respect as Rutte has now. - The working of the establishment parties in past decade is not the working of the system, and that includes the formation of a cabinet. 9 months was not normal, and abuse of power by extremely disciplined party members, an authoritorian goverment. It does not need to be like that. In earlier videos he already showed his lack of knowledge of European history. The Dutch have been a military superpower for centuries. They invented 'modern' land warfare with their military revolution and invented the marines, they brought the Spanish Empire to it's knees, defended successfully against a combined French, English and German states attack, they successfully invaded and conquered Britain to give it it's current parliamentary monarch and bill of rights for the sake of becoming an ally against France, and they managed to stay out WWI and keep neutrality. This was because of the navy and the flatness of the land. Until bomber planes, the flat lands made them almost impossible to conquer because they'd simply flood the lands and protect the harbours. So the Dutch military weakness or strength depends on the future of warfare rather than their current and actually young military vulnerability is an eternal given. The difference is that the Dutch were never imperialistic ("empire is too expensive"). They were the first modern capitalists, they didn't care about ruling as much land as possible, water was more profitable and it was something kings wanted, not the Dutch Republic. So they have always been in the heart of European business and trade and right between the three superpowers after Spain. They want peace so they can make money, if it's war they try to profit too, but they find all this territorial agression rather silly and play the geopolitical game to stay out of it as much as they can. So the foundation of the ECSC was exactly what the Dutch wanted. The past decade in particular, the Dutch leading politicians have gotten carried away with their leading/broker role in European and world politics and sacrificed Dutch interests to gain more influence. If you are more respected by foreigners than your own people, you're not sticking to your job usually.
    2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761. 2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. The Dutch system has an expanding bureaucracy of insturers who are playing entrepreneur with forced demand by law, burdening the actual care workers with huge bureaucratic obligations so the insurers, financial sector institutions basically, can calculate the profit per patient per treatment action which they are not allowed to cash in. Lots of careworkers spend 40% of their time on the bureaucracy, and the patients have to go through a lot of papers too. In all that bureaucracy, less than noble entrepreneurs are getting filthy rich very quickly by overpricing and underdelivering, the so called zorgcowboys or care cowboys. The quality of the care is declining fast. Nurses are levaing, real doctors who have already finished their education are scarce. People have to travel further and further for a hospital and have to hope for a still well functioning part of the hospital. There are big waiting lists and it's running mainly on many people's inner desire to help other people, but it's not durable. People do get in trouble for not being able to afford their health costs. The system was introduced to end waiting lists, but the waiting lists are bigger than ever and not because of covid. It is Americanized in the sense that it's designed to have people make money on the need of care by people who don't provide any care, or care at all. It's just right wing government being incompetent organizing a health care system leaving it to market forces, to then not let market forces work but protect institutions from the real whip of the market.
    2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. Actually the Dutch were the nicest people back then too, the world was just far less nice. Only peoples like the Khoisan were nicer but that's why they became victim of history. Among the powerful, including the Arabs, the Ashanti, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Moghul Empire in India, the Persians, the British, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Barbaries, the Ottomans, the Dutch were the nicest. They were traders primarily, not imperialists, they didn't want to rule people, but just exploit a bit of land everywhere and sometimes people. They could be ruthless in conflict, but didn't have a desire to submit and rule large parts of the globe. Not nice enough, but still the nicest. That's also why she says "We were not slaves". They Dutch didn't enslave locals because they didn't enslave people, they only bought slaves. That's why they shipped the Cape Malayans to South Africa. In Ghana the Ashanti ran the slave trade, the Dutch didn't boss the Ashanti, they had a settlement and they intermarried, and children of the Ashanti elite were send to the Dutch Republic to study. You are projecting the British 19th century imperialism in South Africa and the world on the 17th and 18th century Dutch here. In the 17th century it took 3 minutes to load a handgun that couldn't shoot straight for over 5 metres. The only power they had over most people of the world is that they could sail the world and therefore trade their goods. Only the meek, the people who had lived in peace for hundreds of years, could be overpowered if necessary. The Dutch were the world's superpower because of their capitalism and proper fair trade, not because of their colonial crime on the side, the British couldn't compete in European and other fair trade, and were dependent on violence for their imperialism with their desire to rule as much land and people they could submit.
    2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. Europe isn't well designed, no one designed Europe. The EU has been useless, there are few good international routes but travelling by train is generally unnecesseraly time consuming and far too much hassle while far more expensive than flying. The EU is a globalist organization and therefore gives air travel a free pass instinctively while it has failed to do anything to harmonize continental train travel so it actually works continental. Free travel within the EU is no more either. Cycling as a serious transpart option is mostly Dutch, Flemish and Danish, and the EU has done absolutely nothing to not get in the way of it, by it's control freaks moaning about helmets. They have poisoned many cyclists by encouriging diesels for a small CO2 gain and then letting the car manufacturers fraud the emission checks. Not to mention the underpaid and overworked Eastern European truck drivers that because of the EU can use their local drivers licence to run of over cyclists in the Netherlands. But all the cars have a mandatory blue EU flag on their licence plate. Stable and comparable gas prices to keep the EU mobile was a bit too much to ask from the EU too. Sometimes some infrastructure project is subsidized by the EU, adding 30% overhead cost while it's money that is taken from the country itself, as the EU has no money of it's own. Cyclists have not been part of any EU safety regulation for cars and it has allowed passenger safety to come at the expense of cyclists. As a Dutch cyclist, train user and occasional car driver, there's absolutely nothing I have to thank the EU for, on the contrary.
    2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903.  @Ned-nw6ge  It's probably less than 1%. There was the huge European trade, which didn't take a year to get there and a year to return, but brought profit every month. But besides the huge European sea trade there was also a lot of trade on rivers and canals, a lot of fishery (the herring fishery alone made more money annually than the entire VOC at it's peak), and a lot of industry. From fake china to more than half of Europe's books printed in the Dutch Republic, lots of cloth, furniture, a large weapon industry. The Dutch already had a big spending middle class, even the painting industry was colossal for it's day because ordinary people who could not afford what's now a Dutch master did buy paintings. The Dutch didn't take part in the transatlantic slavery until 1638, more than half way through it's golden age. The VOC only started paying dividend in 1631. The 5% is a rather dubious calculation to support the fashionable idea that suffering somehow equals economic importance. That 5% is the entire slave related industry from peak years, so for example sugar bought from a French of English slave colony, transported all over to the Dutch republic, processed and refined and then sold. That's not how BNP works. The Dutch Republic's decision to give up on it's moral/calvinist objection to slavery is very important and interesting from a moral point of view, but not very relevant economically, especially not in the rise of the Dutch Republic because that already happened without the WIC, mostly a financial faillure and a war success, and the VOC's money.
    2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. It's too shallow an analysis. We don't vote for parties, we vote for candidates, candidates are on a list with other candidates usually, and political parties make lists. It's a very open system that also allows for regional representation like in a district system, that just isn't used anymore by candidates and voters. This amounts in practice to vote for parties which a corresponding parliamentary group, but it's important because there are more options and Omtzigt of the 4th biggest party newcomer NSC was voted into parliament against the will of his party. Also members of parlement can split off from their parliamentary group, often leading to suspension as party member, so the parliamentary groups are based on consensus rather than party orders too. The trend has been towards more hierarchical obedient relation through party politics, but there is a new situaton now. We now have not only 37 seats for Wilders anti establishment party, we also have newcomers NSC and BBB with 28 seats together, and there are a few anti establisment seats with smaller parties too. So the establishment of the classic parties that felt free to just govern an go ahead with it's (hidden) plans while forming a coalition for 9 months doesn't have the majority anymore. 3 months used to be a reasonable formation time for decades, for the establisment in fact, but there is no reason it can't be done faster with these new parties. There might be a minority supported cabinet, a cabinet of not very political experts with the house leading politically, there doesn't need to be a dominant PM. The constitunial task of the PM is to preside over cabinet meetings and run the tiny department of 'General Affairs', the PM has just one vote in the cabinet.
    2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. The Netherlands is very wet, full of canals and rivers and lakes. So we can skate everywhere, from everywhere to everywhere, but certainly not every winter. The country gets skating mad when it's freezing for over a week, it's a chance you have to grab. In very cold winters there's an extra treat, the Elfstedentocht, but most cold winters are not cold enough and there is just the weeks of speculation whether it will happen again. There have only been 15 official events, but the first time the route along the eleven cities was skated was in 1763 or even earlier. A private association of volunteers organizes the event when it establishes there's enough ice. The 12.000 (?) members of the association, who have paid 5 euro contribution per year for their membership, can partake, just finishing it is the goal and they have to be in before midnight, after having started in the morning. It's a challenge for everybody and you really have to be a good skater in a good shape. The race is done by competitors in the (indoor) marathon skating circuit, which were semi pro's back then, the last three were farmers in their other job. It's a huge event, with about 2 million people cheering them on along the route, with a party atmosphere and music bands etc, and it's live on national TV for the cold avoiding, also about 10 million, more than half of the entire population watched at least a part. I was in the crowd in 1997, it was so cold I downed half a bottle of the local herb liquor, 43% Weduwe Joustra, but/and it was fun. Great atmosphere. Allthoug a huge national event, it's also very Frysian, Frysland is the most different province of the Netherlands, they speak a very old language instead of a dialect for example, Dutch is the second language for many, very stubborn people and even more skating mad than the rest. I know two people who have 'the cross', who finished the tour. They'll let you know if they did, they are really proud. The funny thing is the winner of 85 and 86, Evert van Benthem, moved to Canada to become a farmer there. Only his neighbours know him there, while at the other side of the Atlantic, there are at least 15 million people who still know his name.
    2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. Don't people see what Harris is doing here? He's boxing in Peterson, Shapiro, RFK and Owens with Alex Jones, under the guise of appreciating Joe Rogan. That appreciation is false, because Harris is manipulative in contrast with the curious 'just let the conversation' happen Joe Rogan, who doesn't cut the shots to get a message across without it being his message openly. He also puts censhorship and cancellation between question marks. He's citing the witch hunters as trusted media. The problem is they aren't trustworthy either. I don't really know the guy, but that's the problem with Alex Jones, he should be factchecked into oblivion right after, but the factcheckers can't because they have proven not to check facts and lie. Harris wants there to be a filter and what to be a filter himself, because he doesn't want you to make your mind up but wants to make your mind up for you. That's why he's not into conversations like Joe Rogan, but into editing, using visuals rethorically, getting his message, his thought across, not his arguments. So his appreciation is fake, because he doesn't want to let people make their own mind up like Joe Rogan. The video is fake because his message isn't even that Joe Rogan should be more of a filter, but that Peterson, Shapiro, RFK and Owens are just as full of nonsense as Alex Jones and just as dangerous as this Proud Boys guy that appearently fought people who used violence to prevent Yiannopoulos from speaking, appearently something Harris supports?
    2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. The video goes wrong with the, common, misconception that William was invited by the English nobles. That's only true to the extend that William initiated the contact and asked the nobles to invite him to give him more legitimacy, while already preparing the invasion. The other British and anglophonic misconception is that the Prince of Orange ruled the Netherlands, that's only true to the extend that this was his name and title, but he invaded England in the capacity of Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, a non-heridetary position he was elected in. The British were a bit behind on the Dutch in those days, about a hundred years at least. William didn't want to become absolute monarch, he didn't want to conquer England in the old fashioned way, he wanted to create a stable protestant ally. John Locke, who was living in the Netherlands at that time, was part of the conspiracy to get support from English parliamentarians and was the one who actually accompanied William's wife to London after William had it occupied. So it really can't be a surprised that after William successfully invaded a government was created that was quite similar to that of the Dutch Republic allthoug a monarchy and was in line with Locke's philosophy on government. After an 80-years war for independence with Spain, the Dutch were ahead on the importance of popular support and propaganda too. So William's request to invite him was part of the spin and propaganda, and not his last masterpiece in this invastion. His soldiers would be punished for using the word invasion or conquest, had to treat the locals with respect and buy stuff from them, he rode a white horse in shiny armour and had picked a very symbolic date for his entrance, he held speeches speaking of liberation and religious tolerance and he brought a printing press to further spread his message that they weren't really beeing invaded. Appearently his propaganda has worked until today, fact is that William got what he wanted and didn't have to concede anything. This is not the story of the origin of the American constitution and the bill of rights, but the story of how the late mediavel concepts of natural law and freedom of conscience led to revolt, a Republic, were transferred to England and from there ended up in the USA, allthough it's declaration of independence is materially still very similar to that of Dutch from 1881
    2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023.  @SoulStormZero  I'm not denying colonial crime, just that outright theft wasn't the Dutch style. You can only rob people once but you can return for trade or exploitation. It's not like the Dutch had any power over most of it's trading partners and the Chinese, Indians and Persians were far to sophisticated to take much interest in European goods. So the spices were important to the Asian trade of the Dutch as they could trade them for other Asian goods instead of bringing lots of silver. The majority of what the VOC did was trade within Asia. The Dutch Atlantic slave trade was from 1637 to 1814 and totalled to 600K slaves. That is not on a massive scale relative to the Africans slave trade with England 3 or 5 million, France also something like that, Portugal 5 million and the Arabs 19million. It's also not massive relative to the Dutch trade, being the biggest in the huge European trade and big in the global trade in goods too for a bit longer and only overtaken by the British around the year 1800. What the Dutch did was industrialize the slave trade once they "finally" got in, which was copied by the British who soon took most of it over because they were better at hygiene keeping the slaves alive at that point in time. I doubt that was really necessary for survival, it started with the need to keep the former Portuguese colony of Brazil running after it's capture, that's why the Dutch government gave permission. But after the peace of Munster, parallel with the peace of Westphalia 1648 the WIC couldn't privateer anymore, New Netherland/New Amsterdam was not the big farming settlement it was supposed to have become, it had little else to do than shipping slaves for mostly Spanish, Portuguese and English plantation colonies. So it's not all necessity. But especially during the 80 years war "There can't be trade without war and war without trade", "Spanish" silver and gold from the Americas as well as Portuguese colonial income was directly used to siege Dutch cities in the South. So it was initially about self defense. Initially, the Dutch developped hypocrisy in foreign affairs quite early on as a biblical excuse for entering the slave trade had to be and was made up.
    2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036.  @sakurakou2009  I't really not that different other than that English somehow gets a free pass while France is competiting in a lost match for linguistical and therefore cultural dominance. I also agree that imposing your language on a colony or a former colony is a symbol of power, but it is in fact empowering the people changing the balance of power at the detriment of the one imposing power. If you speak their language you understand them better than they understand you, giving you power over them despite you letting them feel more powerful. Interesting you mention the Dutch because that's what I am and we feel some imperial pressure of English here too, and the Brits and Americans feel very much the centre of the world and empowered because they can speak English anywhere here. But feelings are not facts, we let them speak English, if we stop they are helpless. I know what they are saying to eachother, they are dependent on one of us explaining what we said to eachother. It's just the powerful being lazy and wallowing in their power while being weakened. The Dutch were different colonizers from the British and the French, they weren't imperialistic until the late 19th century. They were exploiters rather than rulers, so learnt the local languages rather than imposing their own, to be more effective. When they started to properly rule and started building schools in Indonesia future independence was seen as inevitable and school children learned English just as Dutch kids. Not to be submissive to the British but to be better equipped in a globalized world. So speaking French increases your power over France and the French, and gives you access to the French speaking world you don't have with English. The presence of a language and exposure to it from a young age makes learning it a lot easier. So imo you can make English the 2nd language, but you're not helping yourself if you discard French out of vengeful post colonial sentiment, which I am understanding of. Use it's presence to learn it and use it to your advantage. Don't see a French speaking person as someone who is oppressing you, but as someone who needs you because you speak French, not to serve him but to serve yourself, you're in charge if your language skills are required.
    2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. Ik weet het zelfs beter en zie dat de NOS weer wat met feiten smokkelt om Nederland slechter af te schilderen dan het was. - Er was niks dubieus aan de kaapvaart. Spanje gebruikte de rijkdommen uit de nieuwe wereld om de oorlog tegen de Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlander te financieren, zodat het terugveroverd kon worden en alle niet-katholieken op de brandstapel konden worden gezet. Zelden in de geschiedenis was een oorlog en dus ook de kaapvaart zo legitiem. - De WIC was niet zo heel erg privaat en gaf Johan Maurits pas in 1638 toestemming om slaven te gaan halen voor Nederlands-Brazilie, onder de voorwaarde dat ze na 7 jaar zouden worden vrijgelaten en in de tussentijd onderricht in het christelijk geloof zouden krijgen. Daarvoor lieten WIC kapiteins als Piet Hein slaven op buitgemaakte Spaanse en Portugese schepen vrij. Nederland was toen al schathemelrijk van zijn enorme aandeel in de normale Europese handel, meer dan helft. Piet Hein was zelf slaaf geweest en moest ook niks hebben van het onderdrukken van vreemde volkeren voor een Europese oorlog. Zo vanzelfsprekend als slavernij in de rest van de wereld was, was het dat in het vrije Nederland helemaal niet. Dat maakt het niet minder droevig dat uiteindelijk de dominee van de koopman verloor, maar dat ging niet zonder slag of stoot. - De tachtigjare oorlog was niet begin 17e eeuw, die was al 50 jaar aan de gang toen de WIC werd opgericht. - De kaapvaart was behalve niet dubieus ook niet zo lucratief, alleen de zilvervloot was een grote klapper maar het waren erg onregelmatige en niet zo hoge inkomsten. De WIC moest het tot dan vooral hebben van pelshandel met de Noord-Amerikaanse Indianen. - Als je zo graag het woord tot slaaf gemaakte wil gebruiken, vertel dan ook even wie ze tot slaaf gemaakt hadden: De voorouders van Akwasi. - De slavenhandel was ook niet erg lucratief, de WIC was dan ook al bankroet in 1647 maar kon met geld van buiten een doorstart maakten, en ging al failliet in 1674. Om een of andere reden is er de laatste tijd een enorme behoeft om te roepen dat Nederland rijk is geworden van de slavernij en kolonialisme, maar dat is gewoon niet waar. Slavernij is belangrijk in de Nederlandse geschiedenis als moreel verval, dieptepunt en een voorbeeld van de Nederlandse hypocrisie (hier niet, daar wel), maar de Nederlandse slavernij is totaal onbetekend in de wereldwijde geschiedenis van de slavernij en de slavernij was nauwelijks van betekenis voor de Nederlandse economie. - Nederland stopte met de transatlantische slavenhandel in 1814, dat was best vroeg, alleen met het vrijlaten van alle reeds bestaande slaven was het niet haantje de voorste. Maar zelfs daarin was het vroeg in vergelijking met de rest van de wereld. De Arabieren waren doorgaans een hele eeuw later en daar en in delen van Afrika heeft men het nog steeds niet begrepen. Hou eens op met je Nederland bashing van belastinggeld en met verdraaiing van de feiten. Dat er zwarte bladzijden zijn in de Nederlandse geschiedenis staat niet ter discussie, maar dat is geen reden om de overige bladzijden ook zwart te maken als de belastingdienst onder Rutte.
    2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061.  @penname5766  "Look, you can’t tell me that the Dutch haven’t also been taught a biased version of history where their achievements have been massively overinflated." That tells it all about the British and the answer is 'No'. The biases and chauvinism changes between catholic and protestant schools, between excusing the colonial past a bit or judging it very hard. But the Dutch never were very imperial and we don't consider us a conquering agressive nation, the Dutch never increased their territory in Europe either, unless by conquering the North Sea. The, relatively little, pride there is in rebellion and self defence. Hardly anyone knows about the Glorious Revolution or Invasion, and in general, when some well respected British historian like Schama writes a book about the Dutch Republic, he gets invited on a TV-show to answer the question why in the hell a British historian would write about the Netherlands. After he explainded how backward the other countries including Britain were back then compared, his book sold, but the Dutch Golden Age being importan and even interesting to the world rather than to just the Dutch was a bit of a surprise. The knowledge I'm sharing here is far from general. And the ones who do know have a chuckle about British sensitivity about not being invaded rather than take pride in the fact that it was a conquest. William III already knew this sensitivity back then and his soldiers were under strict orders not to use the word invasion or conquest. It was a 'hearts and minds' campaign. Of course William III wasn't a Dutch king but a noble with just a title from the county of Orange in Southern France who was appointed in the office of stadtholder of the Dutch Republic by the States, the Dutch parliaments. stadtholder is the anglified word for Stadhouder, which was the Dutch word for steward. as it was initially the position of steward to king Philip of Spain, but William of Orange aka William the Silent and the only one who goes without a number, led the rebellion that would become the 80-years war. He was the great grandfather of William III. Assuming it was a Dutch king just as hungry for power and land as British king is therefore based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation and his motives. It's the projection of British medieval politicis on the Dutch Republic which marked the end of the Middle Ages and the start of the modern times. British historians often make a similar anglocentric mistake, not by calling him a king after some basic research, but assuming he came to England in the capacity of Prince of Orange, which was just a title and his army of 40.000 and his invastion fleet bigger than the Armada was commissioned by parliament. In the (late) Middle Ages the whole of Northern Europe was entrepreneurial. But some area's accellerate in development at certain points in history whlle others are behind. The British were enterpreneurial enough to ship wool to the Low Countries which is was named back then and trading them for bricks, which was high tech they didn't have. But the processing, the higher value added, was in the more advanced regions of that time. Just like when Britain accellerated development with the Industrial Revolution the Netherlands was lagging behind, only recently recovering from the decline that set in after Britain started taking over dominance in world trade after the Glorious Revolution. These things go back and forth, different regions had different times they bloomed and got ahead. But what had been breweing for centuries in the already prospering Low Countries, with the South (now Belgium) the most important, exploded in the North with the Dutch Republic because a few developments came together there. Fully fledged modern capitalism, protestantism and literacy, religious tolerance, immigration, ship building technology (wind powered saw mill) and globalization, proto industrialization, civil rights, freedom of print, connectivity, institutionalized science and innovation, upward social mobility. The Dutch navy wouldn't have stood a chance against the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British when they would have to select their commanders from the much smaller nobility from a much smaller population. It was 1.5 million vs 20, 3, 28 and 10 million or something. The 80-years war, mostly overlapping with the Dutch Golden Age, made it into a pressure cooker. As a multicultural, multireligious global trading hub, 17th century Dutch Republic was unprecedented. Just like the indusrial revolution happened in Britain, beause there developments that had been brewing all over Europe came toghether at that place at that moment in time. But a pretty essential invention for the precision engineering was for example the lathe, a French invention with a Dutch predecessor, or the cranck, which through the wind powered saw mill gave the Dutch the industrialization of ship building which gave them more merchant ships than the rest of Europe combined in the 17th century. I could also return the question, If capitalism originated in Britain, why they had to copy it from the Dutch? I'm not claiming capitalism originated in the Netherland btw, it was after developments in Italy, all kinds of exchanges in today's Belgium in the 1400's and 1500's, insurance programs for herring fishermen in the North that the Dutch Republic were the first with an entire capitalist system including a central bank, almost a century before William III gave Britain it's crucial Bank of England, with lots of financial products and a stock exchange. Of course if youré a British historian looking back into Britain's history you go back to the industrial revolution and then the Bank of England and the coffeehouses, then further back you'll find traces of capitalism before too. And then you have a story of how capitalism developped in Britain. And it's not wrong, it's just not the whole story. The history of capitalism in Britain is not the history of capitalism, just like the history of the Glorious Revolution is not an entirely British history. I'm not saying British historians don't speak their languages, but the dominance of English creates and facilitates an Anglocentric perspective that makes it easy to overlook international developments and influences. The Dutch simply have less people, less historians, less books and they have always been in the middle of international developments. Dutch historians have to rely on foreign sources in foreign languages, often propagandistic when pre 20th century, and those perspectives a lot more. And even for studies into daily life inside the Dutch Republick the most important works were in English by Britons or Americans, citing English visitors. Not English soldiers of course, no idea how they would end up there and they would be mostly illiterate. No, British nobles came to visit this economic miracle, this odd little country, the anus of Europe, the Frogs before the French became the big enemy, that outcompeted them. I believe both punched massively above their weight because both their times of explosive bloom coincided with the globalization/Europeanization they created themselves, the Dutch/LowLands in the 16th and 17th century, the British in the 18th and19th, adding huge weight to their punches. It's not a competition, I'm just saying Britain went from backwards to most advanced too just like other cultures and it's not a linear development throug some unique AngloSaxon spirit or something that didn't had outside influences, an army de facto invading and occupying the country to take the throne and reform the country's politics and economics fundamentally to a foreign example is a huge outside influence. The huge social changes the Dutch Republic speerheaded didn't transfer though, except for religious tolerance but that was mostly political back then. Britain remained classist, unequal and unegalitarian with limited upward social molibiltiy, oppressive morals. If we look back at the origins of what we consider basic individual freedom today, we might as well ignore Britain.
    2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. Het begint al met de verkeerde vraagstelling in de video. De vraag is niet waarom buitenlandse studenten hierheen willen maar waarom wij ze zouden willen hebben. Het niveau van het onderwijs en onderzoek verhogen is het enige deugdelijke argument. Prima, maar dan heb je het over de beste studenten, de grootste talenten uit het buitenland. Dan laat je dus geen middelmatige studenten die nog slechter Engels spreken dan Nederlanders toe, en dan ga je niet alles in het Engels geven want dat is al een niveauverlaging op zich. In het buitenland studeren was altijd een prestatie omdat je een vreemde taal op academisch niveau moest beheersen en je in een vreemd land moest zien te redden. Aan die bubbles van buitenlandse middelmatige studenten hebben we helemaal niks. En dan ook nog klagen dat ze geen kamer kunnen krijgen, dat is als een toerist die klaagt dat het ergens te toeristisch is: Je bent zelf de oorzaak. En dan ook nog klagen dat studentenhuizen geen zin hebben om de hele tijd ook nog eens thuis steenkolenengels te moeten praten omdat zo'n buitenlandse student geen enkele moeite wil doen. Het is van zo'n kruiperigheid, "we willen natuurlijk wel mee blijven doen". Hoezo? Waarom? We hebben een mooi land met weinig ruimte, als je zoiets kostbaars zomaar weggeeft aan iedereen die het wil hebben dan maak je wel 'vrienden' ja, maar wat hebben wij daaraan? Wat is dat voor ziekelijke neiging om door het buitenland aardig gevonden te worden? In Frankrijk kom je niet verder dan op de camping zitten als je geen Frans spreekt. .Dat is ook overdreven maar als we massaal ophouden met Engels spreken staan voelt honderduizenden mensen zich ineens de buitenstaander die ze blijkbaar hebben willen blijven.
    2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. I don't doubt the christian morality of the painting but I don't see the darkness to the same degree. I also see ridicule, satire, mockery, charicature, cartoonish humour, which hasn't been alien to the Southern Netherlands since and also reminds me of Bruegel. Maybe the good catholics good have a chuckle with this conversation peace, about man's tendency to sin? Also a hundred years later in the Netherlands there was quite a strict morale but without the prudeness regarding nudity or the joy of sex within marriage. The Dutch way of dealing with love and marriage was what drove the puritans from the Dutch republic to become the Pilgrim Fathers and many English visitors were apalled by sexual freedoms the Dutch enjoyed within the context of a strict morality. We should not look at with modern eyes but maybe we should also not look with British eyes, who were and are as we all know far more prudish than the Dutch. Same with race btw, I don't see them painted with hate, and again about a century later there were quite a few blacks living in the Dutch Republic, we know of the mostly black men marrying white Dutch women and there are no traces of any racial hatred of that time in the Dutch Republic itself. Of course a lot can change over a century, and there was a change of the religion in power, but still. "Protestant reformer" did not really cover William of Orange. He switched religion but he was much more a fighter, he led the Dutch revolt initially, for religious freedom more than for protestantism. This was of course enough reason for the zealot Philip II to take his paintings.
    2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122.  @sunnya4310  The Dutch Cape colony was a tradiing post with farmland to get fresh food on the ships that often took a year to make the journey. They might not have always treated the local Khoikhoi as fair as the 21th century pretends to require, but it has nothing to do with the rape of Africa in the 19th and 20th century. The had been getting richer since the 11the century, when they started building their country from swamps and making land out of the North Sea, turning a huge disadvantage into an advantage with maritime skills and using water for transport and defence. In the 17th century almost all cities were connected by canals, and as trade is the foundation of wealth and ships are much more efficient transporting goods than mules, of course they got rich. The nutmeg that travelled a year from the Dutch Indies, making a stop in the cape colony and then would be loaded on to another ship and travel the Dutch canals to some minor city would of course not have made a big difference. It's not like nutmeg was the main food for Europeans or spices were more than a tiny part of their spendings. Actually, the Dutch had nothing to do with the rape of Africa, those were all other European powers. You should not forget that most Africa was a no go zone for Europeans before they had a treatment for Malaria and some other diseases. They relied on the coast dwelling Africans for trade, including slaves. The Dutch didn't take part in the actual colonization of Africa. I agree neocolonialism isn't much better than colonialism, and even worse in some respects. But the Dutch are just as submitted to the supreme neocolonial powers as African countries, just from a better position. What the USA, or China, is doing now isn't very different from what the Dutch did centuries ago and what's called free trade, except that the Americans are probably much more violent and controlling. I agree on Khadaffi, but his failure to unite Africa in an economic powerful union is more down to Africa itself than to the attempts of the USA and it's vassal states. African tribalism even prevents nation states to become successful and to be fair, most of Africa's resources would be worthless without specific Western demand. From uranium to kobalt or whatever powers your phone and even cacao, without Europeans, Americans and Asian making products out of it, it would still be sitting in the earth. There might be some bitter justice in the migrant crisis from the surface, that is a depletion of Africa as it's mostly the young middle class from Africa becoming the underclass in Europe. It's also the crisis of society, people giving up on their birthplace and country, stop trying to make it better but going to another society that has been made successful without them. That way societies won't get any better and the world won't get better.
    2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127.  @lokischeissmessiah5749  He didn't face any opposition because the legitimate absolutist king got a nosebleed and fled to France before the big battle. His wife was not the legitimate heir either, otherwise the Dutch would have waited it out. One of the reasons he hardly met any resistance was the size of his fleet and army and his effective propaganda campaign, asking a few lords with no power to invite him while already preparing the invasion was a part of that. How do you imagine that invition: "Come over, we are going to has to remain a surprise but bring a fleet twice the size of the Armada, 40.000 soldiers, a printing press and John Locke over." ? This is a video about trade, you start about the wars the English started against the Dutch Republic and against free trade. Because they couldn't compete in trade and had these medieval reflexes against the Dutch Republic that put the 'modern' in 'the early modern period'. The only reason the English matched the Dutch navy mostly was the trend towards heavier gunships the Dutch couldn't go along with because of their shallow home waters. The Dutch were never interested in being the most aggressive conquerers and imperialists, we even let you claim our succesfull invasion as your own revolution without being able to name one revolutionary act by an Englishman involved. That's also somethign typically British, because you don't know anything about other countries history you assume you were the first. But the Dutch had parliaments for ages and when the king took power back to enforce religious persecution they claimed inalienable rights including the freedom of religion, and declared the king, Philip II of Spain to have left the throne by becoming a tyrant. This was in 1581, well before any other and surely the Britihs got any such ideas. So the Dutch had parliaments (with commoners mostly, not nobility), balance of power, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, speech and print, full fledged capitalism with effectively a central bank in the early 1600's, and after a Dutchman arrived with an army and sat on the throne the British suddenly all had this too? What a coincidence, suddenly they came of with the Bank of England and free trade. They had their ally against France instead of the treachorous English going behind our back to attack together with France and catholic Germany like in 1672. It wasn't a coincidence that the radically modernized Britain 5 times the size of the Dutch Republic would take over afterwards, allthough it took Napoleon's invasion for Britain to take over from the Dutch Republic as the world's biggest trader. Capitalists as they were the Dutch didn't care the British doing most of the geopolitical fights now and understanding how to make money too, because the filthy rich Dutch simply got ROI through London now too. The fact that you take pride in Britain not honouring the agreement and taking the colonies is also telling. All the Dutch wanted since the 1560's, freedom and free trade basically, they got and secured it through exporting it. By making more money than anybody else and being copied, by printing more than half of Europe's books, by being a place where people like Descartes, Spinoza and John Locke could write their ideas in freedom and kickstart the enlightenment, by invading Britain, by having their DOI copied by the American rebels, by giving those rebels their guns and ammo, by shaping NYC with it's melting pot and the American dream. How did the Dutch lose? As some British tourist tot the Netherlands famously said: "If this is decline, I'll have some of that!"
    2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141.  @pistonburner6448  It's true purpose? You mean a narrowed down window of operation to track and good quality roads with no heavy load? That's fine, roads have hugely improved the past decades outside Belgium, but it seems to me the true purpose of a suspension system is to keep the tyres following the surface in accordance with the driver's steering and pedal input. Within that there are specilizations, like cornering fast on a smooth surface, or the ability to both be comfortable and handle very rough surfaces, like the Range Rover. Please automakers, be true to your chosen purpose, your window you narrowed down to excell within, be the most BMW you can be, I appreciate that, not BMW building SUV's. I don't believe BMW should have switched to hydropneumatic suspension ever in history. It's not the party trick that made the hydropneumatic system superior, that was just something that came with concept, which had both the progressive nature of the suspension and the self levelling nature. That simply made for less trade off between road holding and stability vs comfort. I think Mercedes was able to tune a suspension and innovate on geometry too, and you see the result when Germans test it against a far more comfortable Citroen in the video abover. Mercedes btw that copied the Citroen system for it's top model above and almost twice expensive as the regular top model, the 450 SEL 6.9, often called the best car in the world, a chauffeur's limo and a driver's car in one. Air suspension never matched hydropneumatic suspension, or came close, Mercedes did a good job on the 600 and 300 SEL 6.3, but switched to the superior system for their newest top car. Mercedes and Citroen engineers were very much alike, they are innovative, stubborn and know what's best. What we see now is after decades of allmost all automotive engineers working to improve coil springs and almost non on the hydropneumatic, coil springs have massively improved. Dampers being electronically controlled, magnet powered, using gas properties like a hydropneumatic system, whatever, I'm not into the details I just know that there is a lot great engineering involved. What we have here is a competition between an excellent concept that worked great from the start because it was brilliant and simple, and we have lots of great engineers tinkering with a concept that started as an improvement on the leaf spring, according to most except Chevrolet. A break even point, a tipping point, was never unexpected in those circumstances and I believe it's behind us by now. But certainly not around 1990, the hydropneumatic suspension made the BX 1.9 perform in the mountains like cars much sportier or powerful and expensive.
    2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 1
  1147.  @kudjoeadkins-battle2502  From the same seas as after they entered the slave trade, that didn't make a difference. The responsible WIC was on the edge of bankruptcy almost all the time, it was primarily set up to fight the Spanish enemy, it only got big in the slave trade in the very late 17th century and early 18th century, so past the economic boom, after the Dutch Golden Age. The Dutch Golden Age came from the European trade. The Dutch merchants did more than half of all European trade, they were the successor to the Hansa and over 70% of the ships in the Baltic Sea was Dutch. We are talking about tens of thousands of merchant ships here, while the WIC at it's peak would have something like 70 maybe? You go on a boat tour in Amsterdam and you see all those canal houses with hooks on top, these were all private merchants. The VOC and WIC had their own warehouses, more than one and quite big, but peanuts in comparison. It's not like wheat, wood, salt, beer, whine, rye, iron, cloth and whatever stopped being shipped around Europe when Europeans joined the African slave trade. The Dutch Republic was also huge in cloth production, dominated fishery, printed over half of Europe's books, was the financial centre of the world and had many more industries. But if we only concentrate on the trade, the Dutch Republic was the biggest trader in the world from about 1600 to 1800 when the British took over after the Netherlands was invaded by Napoleon's France. In that time it did less than 2% of the trade in African slaves (African on African slavery not counted) of that era while completely dominating the trade in goods. I'm sorry but it was just peanuts, all that suffering for no significant economic contribution. I don't diminish anything, the Africans did the same slavetrading and slavery and were the enslavers, the abductors, the Arabs were the worst and they were at least as wrong for doing it, and they should admit it and face up to it like grown ups. I don't do the racial indoctrination of black and brown people somehow only being a helpless victim of Europeans. Africans were usually the boss at the African coasts, they bossed the slave trade, the Dutch were customers, they came to buy what was on offer. They couldn't go inland without getting ill and dying from, only in the 1870's, over 50 years after the slavetrade ended, Europeans started to rule Africa but without the Dutch partaking. Slavery is and was a moral issue, that doesn't gain or lose any weight with a fictitious economic importance. It is a particular toxic false narrative though because it implies that wealth can only come from taken it by force and cannot be created by industry and trade. If cheap labour would have made any country rich why aren't those free African and Asian manual labourers of now not producing great wealth for themselves? It's misinforming people on the way to become wealthy today.
    1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166.  @xyz835  It's not like the Africans don't use phones or want to do without any of the good that came from Europe. I agree the country is the people's, the people who were born there and should be free. Africans have no right to come to the Netherlands and the Ducht have no right to have African cobalt. But if they make a good deal, which is not that hard because Affircans have no use for cobalt without the West or Asia, then there is no issue. Of course this doesn't work out this fair in the neo-colonial post WWII era. Mostly because of poor governance in Africa, they are not strong enough and don't make good deals for their people. Not to mention the lack of African countries to unite in things like this. So that's a current problem and that's why it's very unwise to be concerned with the past, it's only because it diverts attention from the present, which could actually be improved. The past won't get any prettier. The Dutch have been hypocrites for almost 2 centuries, because they didn't apply their standards to peoples overseas. But they had very high standards for themselves, much higher than Africans had for themselves, like outlawing slavery, and for about 150 years they have been applying the same standards for people overseas too. In general, the Europeans are the first civilization in history that cared for other civilizations. It's not that Africans came up with human rights, abolition of slavery, equality, upward social mobility, freedom of religion and expression, things like that. You're now attacking the West retro-actively based on the values they brought to Africa and from the position that was given to them.
    1
  1167.  @xyz835  I've been curious about the different perspectives before and I think the difference is that from a young age I've felt part of the progress of humanity in the past 500 years not only because it came from my culture and kept coming. the question was what you were going to do when you grew up to further that progress, from inventing something to human rights lawyer or something. The world is moving forward and you have part to play. So for me it's about time, things were terrible in the past, but the Middle Ages were already better than the Roman Empire, and after the Middle Ages progress became self accellerating. To Africans I think this progress was something that mostly happened to them and it often wasn't experienced as progress at all. So for me it's just something that happened with time, while for Africans it's something of geography. So from my perspective it's often Africans not appreciating the progress made in the past 500 years enough. The Congo has of course been an example of neo colonialism ugly face since Lumumba in 1960. But that's an American face rather than a Belgian one, just as one could make a good case that Congo Free State was much more of a British crime than a Belgian one. France is a player and a very dirty one, but countries like the Netherlands are also submitted to an order we have very little influence over. The last time the Netherlands was a world power is 300 years ago, not that big a difference with Benin or Togo allthough that weren't globalized. The CIA or whatever agency does almost as it pleases her too. Of course we're much better off, but we have to be very smart and work together with others to get some leverage for our own interests. In the longer run, we've had an 80-years war with Spain for freedom and independence, taking the war to their overseas income was the reason to go colonial in the first place, the 20 year occupation by the French Empire with napoleon had bankrupted the country, unitl the late 1800's Amsterdam was half slums and over a quarter of the population was dependent on food aid. And after the Nazi occupation in WWII the country was wrecked. It's only different degrees of victimhood, powerlessness and recovery we're talking about here. The difference is, we know how the world order works because we made it before much bigger others took over. The Dutch invented modern capitalism, the Dutch were the first nation state, the first free European people, and therefore had to learn international relations and diplomacy very fast. And there was always capital hanging around from better times that gets invested after such hardship. That's for example why Ireland gives such huge tax breaks to foreign corporation, they have basically been a victim of British colonialism too and they have no capital of their own, so they have to. But now they are accumulating it because of that policy. So basically it's a big bad world and if you're weak as a nation you get eaten. You got to be organized, keep corruption in check, avoid tribalism, find allies and have a long term strategy to accumulate capital. Resentment and revenge or reparations, if we would have gone down that road we would have been piss poor too because it's Germans and the French we make money off. It's not like there was no bitterness towards Germans, but you don't get wealthy form hand outs.
    1
  1168.  @xyz835  I am reasonable but I admit my tone was irritated. Because this video is about the Netherlands and we've been practically out of Africa for 2 centuries. We were not part of the19th century colonization of Africa, we were very good friends with the Ashanti slavetraders but certainly not their bosses, we are the indiginous people Mauritius as it was unhabited and the Boers in South-Africa were assholes, but also mostly settlers who took land to farm on, it was the British who conquered South-Africa to rule it's people, including the Boers. I spoke about Belgium because it was about the Congo. Belgium and the Netherlands are neighbours but their colonial histories couldn't be further apart. It was the UK gave Belgium it's king, and then this king Congo Freestate as his personal property with British shareholders. After the atrocities the Belgian government took over, and wanted to become the good, model colonizer. They really tried, it was in a condascending way but that's how people thought in those days, I can forgive that more easily. And during decolonization, Belgium became a puppet again, but this time for the USA and it's neocolonialism and cold war strategy. The Dutch colonial past is about Suriname, Indonesia and the Antilles mainly. Suriname was offered independence at the time it suited them, they picked 1975. We left a beautiful multicultural, multireliigious, multiracial, multi ethnic country, it's the most peaceful and safe country of South-America with sufficient schools and hospitals. Since independence about 30.000 euro's per inhabitant has been paid to Suriname in development aid. half of the population has moved to the Netherlands, many needing and getting aid there. What is there to repair? Suriname was basically just rain forest with hardly any indiginous people when the Dutch started digging canals and making it more inhabitable. When you're born in Suriname you're a winner in the global birthplace lottery, despite Surinamese government walking in many of the typical post-colonial pitfalls like tribalism, allthough the 'tribes' of Suriname tend to get along very well and intermarry a lot. I fully agree with adding value locally or at least within the country or continent. That would be a loss to the Swiss but one they can't handle or can't accept. It's just not their choice, they don't control the mechanism either, the cacao producing countries have to get their own cog in and change that mechanism a bit. But that's hard because there's generations of experience and knowledge of capitalism to deal with and sometimes compete with. But population growth is not helping in making labour valuable, Africa is in a phase were chld survival is high thanks to Western medicine, but birth control is low. This is an old problem and partly a cause of European colonialism. If a farmer has seven sons they will all have to earn a living from 1/7th of the land. Of course they will get poorer individually. We don't learn much about the succes stories like Tanzania here, and in general Europeans are frustrated with the lack of success of Africa in general. Like 'they wanted independence, they got it, we helped them to come in to their own and now it's a mess'. And they did help them, they gave money themselves, they voted for development aid, but they often don't realize their govenments, their companies and their allies are forces that undermine the success of Africa behind the scenes too. So after giving help generously now we get demands for repartions and how bad Europeans or even whites are genetically, that doesn't go down that well except for the people who have some cultural christian guilt complex and want to take on all the sins of the world and self flagellate in repent. That group is quite loud lately, but mostly for virtue signalling reasons and not from a vision for the future.
    1
  1169.  @xyz835  The Dutch were a colonial power, and they were the superpower of the 17th century, in which they shaped a large part of the modern world, including the constitutional monarchy of the UK which was the start of the British Empire and a result of a Dutch invasion, and they were the blueprint for the USA. But they weren't about ruling but about trading, unfair trade and exploitation. They only 'properly' colonized Indonesia in the late 19th and early 20th century to develop it instead of the cynical exploitation by proxy, through local rulers. The Boers were in majority of Dutch descent and they settled in South Africa as part of a Ducht paramilitary company, a comined state/private entreprise that had to self finance through trade to wage war against the Spanish Empire overseas. So that was a Dutch responsibility until 1795. Yes, they tend be inbred, racist bible belt types, but they were also more about farming in seperattion than about ruling and oppressing, and they fought with the Zulu's against the British oppressors at instances too. They migh represent the worst in racist societies, but not the worst in colonialism I think. But we have grown very far apart from the Boers, pun intended, we can smiile about them kicking British ass but outrage about apartheid was omnipresent in the Netherlands just like support for the American civil rights movement before. The Netherlands took pride in being the leading nation in antiracism back then. An exploding population is an opportunity for a country, but it's not incentive for higher value labour and therefore broad wealth growth. It's mainly an opportunity to make more money off the country. Land is probably still an issue since the geography of Africa is mostly unlucky for this age, and what is the case with a farm is is the case for other businesses too. If the next generation is 5 times as big in numbers, the business will have to grow 500% in those 20 years too, otherwise everybody gets a smaller share. Anyway, you've got to force good deals in the global market and global investment with a strong government. Ally with cobalt producint countries for example, just like OPEC. It's a big bad world and a rough game, get good at playing it. There probably is not other option than getting good at it, be hard, be mean, play dirty, everybody does, but don't play dirty against yourselves, your own population. Europe will probably stop adopting that problem, because the numbers are so way off it can't contribute to the solution anyway. The main reason the corporate world is behind mass immigraton to Europe is because they can make money quicker of them as a jobless immigrant in the Netherlands than waiting until they flourish in Africa. Because life costs 40 dollars a day in Western-Europe and less than 5 dollars day in many parts of Africa. That's money spend and money earned, no matter the immigrant not having a job and being miserable and relatively poor. Mass immigration is the lazy way to get growth of BNP, from which is skimmed off, without increased productivity, new businesses or innovation. On the issue of the acknowledgement there are two things. The moral one, which is a bit weird because no one supports colonialism and slavery. It was a Western idea to abolish slavery worldwide, which was a sacrifice much bigger than giving up on slave labour, and the decolonization was done because it was the right thing to do. It was also the USA taking over from Europe through neo-colonialism, but still. So that moral acknowledgement is 200 years and 70 years old. It's the foundation of the abollition of slavery and the foundation of independence. The acknowledgement that it's that where our wealth comes from is difficult because it's mostly not true. I have less insight in the British situation, but European countries that haven't done any colonization or at least not since the Vikings are wealthy too. The Netherlands was already very rich before anyone sailed past the European seas. It got filthy rich in the 17th century, but well before it gave up it's objections to the slave trade in 1637 and before the VOC, the infamous Dutch East Indies Company finally started paying dividend. The Netherlands dominated European trade, the colonial part was less than 1%. The Indonesians claim the Dutch extorted all their nutmeg, and that's true, but the nutmeg got by far the most of it's value by being sailed for 14 months to Amsterdam. One's profit does not equal another one's loss. The Netherlands was piss poor in 1815, a quarter of the population was still piss poor in 1870. Yes, the houses were still standing and there was still capital with the rich for possible investment. The Netherlands was piss poor in 1945 and many buildings weren't standing anymore and the people were recovering from a famine. But besides the availabilty of capital for investment and the remaining infrastructure, we also had knowledge of capitalism and how the big bad world usually works, we had social cohesion, we had well educated people, but also the historically grown belief that we could get on top again. And the UK remained on food stamps for much longer than the Netherlands. So my answer to the question where European wealth comes from it would be the capacaty of recovery in a capitalist world, the world we shaped, more than anything else.
    1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177.  @mansamusa9465  No, that's your racist obsession with skin colour. They weren't Africans and brought nothing from African culture. It's also a bit sad, this inferiority complex to look down European history and out tens of thousands of people pick the blacks and then declare them crucial. No, they weren't, there were just too few of them for black people to be, that would have been a huge coincidence but there wasn't. I don't claim Africa needed colonialism, I'm claiming that in the renaissance in Eúrope something extraordinary happened, despite it not being the most advance. Before that civilizations, including African civilizations, developped slowly over thousands of years. With the reinaissance, book printing and science Europe got on a track of continuous accelaration of development and not just overtaking more developped civilizations like China and maybe even some in West-Africa, but also leaving them very much behind in only a century or even less. This was also used for imperialism, but the development was so impressive that it is to the advantage of the whole world. It's not just the Europeans that saw infant mortality hugely decreased, more crops on less land, car, train and aeroplane use, computers and telephone. I'm claiming Europe's enlightenment has given opportunity to everybody for a better life, but where most of Asia and America seizes that opportunity, Africa is sulking in resentment towards Europeans and in denial about what modern European civilizaton brought and in denial about their own failings. That's not being proud, that's holding back oneselves through bitterness.
    1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181.  @zeissiez  It's not really imperialism. It's basically what the Dutch did until the late 19th century, as they invented modern capitalism around 1600. Ironically the Dutch got imperialist, actually controlling the people and the land of now Indonesia, because they felt they had to take responsibility for the people instead of letting the cruel local rules make them rich. So you could also see a colonial system as an improvement on a purely for profit capitalist control. Because money controls as long as people from for example Africa are greedy and corrupt. I don't think those terms are derogatory. These are common languages as in a language that people have in common, not native languages per se, lingua franca, just like Swahili or English between different Europeans. This is how people are positioned in the world from the perspective of the outside world. I don't know the Igbo word for Anglophonic is, I do know English allows non Igbo speakers to communicate with the Igbo. What languages are called is always a matter of perspective. I live in the country called Nederland where the people are Nederlands and who speak Nederlands. But the British and Amercans call the country Holland and the people and the language Dutch, which is bastardization of what the Germans call their language and the people, Deutsch, because in their own language their own country is called Deutschland. I could say that's incorrect, but it's their language. If they Igbo don't want to call Europe but "Imperialistan" that's their decision about their language from an international perspective, and Europeans learning Igbo will have to follow that language rule. There are always bigger fish unless it's the USA. The British have also found out that the Americans determine the namings know and that's often self centered, etnocentric and not always expressing full understanding of the local situation. That's just not going to happen. I don't expect you to be considerate to every nuance between Europeans, that requires too much intimate knowlegde.
    1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213.  @white.gloves3166  What is over-using butter? An American scientist left France out of his study because it would disprove his opinion that animal fats were bad for the heart, yes he was a fraud but food science is does not correct on fraud or otherwise very poor science. Actually we see similar things here. The French have come up with different ways of preparing mushrooms that works in the sense that it tastes good, not scientific but very emperical. Then Americans theoretize how mushrooms would be could better based on incomplete insights in the molecular level basically claiming the French have been doing it wrong all the time and calling them snotty. And even the taste test by the American proves the French were right, which is nowhere near as hard as the French taste test, which they have been doing for ages. Theoretically according to the Americans, partly based on scientific fraud, the French diet should be more unhealthy because of all the animal fats and the wine, but also here the facts show that the French are much healthier and live much longer. Again the proof is in the pudding, not in the scientific models. There is nothing wrong with drinking wine at every meal except breakfast. I personally prefer beer with spicy food, but that's a different matter. Food and health science is a dodgy field, even government agencies advising on diets and consumption habits admit they have no solid scientific base for their advices. They simply know very little for sure while dealing with lots of variables and possible working mechanisms.
    1
  1214.  @DJstarrfish  I'm not French but I know there is a cultural attention to tasting carefully and discussing it from a very young age instead of shoving some oversugared cornflakes in. They have been frying mushrooms and discussing the best methods for centuries and have reached a relative consensus, by the only relevant standard and that is how taste and texture end up. If you want to be scientific you do a double blind randomized taste trial with some accomplished French tasters. You can experiment with it and from different perspectives, but you have to realize it is already a product of experimentation and evaluation you are experimenting on and you have to realize the goal is not in objectifiable things like the mushrooms floating capability. Culture is not race of course, but if I would talk down like this to other fully developped sophisticated cuisines like the Japanese or the Indonesian, that would certainly raise some eyebrows regarding colonial attitudes and rightly so. It is the same arrogant disrespect for highly developped cultures but because the French are white Americans feel free to let themselves go in their arrogant ignorance. But it's still French cuisine they are aspiring to here. You think I would dare to even discuss cooking techniques of Indonesian dishes with my Indonesian neighbour on equal terms? Of course not, I can be humble student learning from those who know best, trying to copy and match the result is already a very high bar. Same if you try your hand at French cooking, start with modesty and don't assume you know better because there a few things you know. These dogmas don't come out of nowhere, and when you claim the mushrooms release their water again while frying, you are changing the frying process by vaporizing all that water. The assumption that it is only about the amount of water left in the mushroom is what makes it antiscientific datapicking.
    1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237.  @jamisojo  Probably not, since they weren't in it. Central Africa was given by the British to the King of the Belgians as personal property, a German noble the British gave Belgium too. Not surprisinly, the other shareholders of that private property, Congo Free State, were British too. Belgium and the Netherlands (the country of the Dutch) have been seperated since the Dutch declared independence from Spain because they wanted freedom of religion, they denounced the divine right of kings, claimed people had inalienable rights and any government should serve it's people, and founded the Dutch Republic in 1581, that invented modern capitalism and was the cradle of the enlightenment and was the first nation state. No surprise the American DOI of 2 centuries later was pretty much a copy. Anyway, after the Napoleontic occupation the bankrupt Netherlands was united with Belgium and given a king because Britain wanted a buffer monarchy. Abolishing the slavetrade was what that king/government did in it's first year. But the union with Belgium only lasted 15 years. so no involvement with Central Africa from the Dutch, the Dutch weren't part of the scramble for Africa and didn't partake in the rape of Africa. They had good friends in Africa before, the Ashanti in Ghana, but that was before Europeans could survive inland Africa and before rubber became a big industry. The Africans bossed the trade, including the slavetrade, anyway. The Dutch intermarried with them and local rich kids went to study in the Netherlands. One actually ended up as a civil engineer in service of the Dutch government in the Dutch East Indies, and was racially discriminated against by his superior. Government paid him financial compensation for that. That was in 1850, same year as the origin of Zwarte Piet, a creation of an abolitionist btw. We've been anitracist here while the Americans still had strange fruit hanging from the trees. Rembrandt had black neighbours in the Jodenbreestraat,, interracial marriage was normal because most blacks in the Dutch Republic were men. First black PhD was in the 1700's, first black cabinet minister was in 1903. I could give you 100 examples of the Dutch being centuries ahaed on the Americans and the British. With this level of ignorance, you just better shut up about other countries. If you don't know, you don't know, I don't care, but shut up about it then. And don't be hypocrite, the current exploitation in the Congo for American companies like Apple is not that much better than Congo FreeState, while the current American empire is more violent and exploitative than the Dutch trade empire from centuries ago. No, that's not much of a defence I'm afraid.
    1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. So we got a group of people coming directly from war, mostly women and children, who only want shelter and return asap, who respect their hosts and are grateful, from who most found a job within 2 months of arrival. And we got groups of young men, who are not coming from war but crossed many safe countries and broke the rules, who 'lost' their passports, who are here to stay forever and demand a house and most will be on social benefits for the rest of their lives and fly in the family they left behind, who harass women ,make a mes of the places they stay, a nuisance to the neighbourhood and who commit a lot of crime. Every week there is 1.2 billion of future financial burden to society coming in from Africa and the Middle East in a country that has a huge housing, health care, infrastructure and energy crisis because it's too full. And it's the colour of their skin why they are less welcome than the genuine refugees? Really? It's refugees vs. imposters, people who need help vs people that come to freeload on what others have build. She calls them 'our people' based on the colour of their skin, but she doesn't take care of her people, we can take care of their people because of the colour of our skin. I know who is the racist in this matter. A million non white people welcomed as refugees in the past two decades, at the average expense to society of 1000 billion, a huge disproportional burden to housing, schools, health care and how is the gratitude expressed: Calling us racist and the women whores in the street, while causing a sharp rise in crime, rape and terrorist attacks. Maybe we should just quit and let you take care of 'your people'?
    1
  1291.  @slavomirakrasna2111  I'm not racist and I see people who are refugees from a war and I see people who are imposters. I'm afraid the skin colour indicates the likeliness of which it is. The Ukrainians didn't decide to change their home country, they came for shelter until they can return to their beloved home country. If this planet belongs to all of us, why did Africans demand independence? Wasn't it the Europeans right to be there and boss it simply because they could, just like an African would? Of course you can live where you were born and not take someone's else's land or have it taken from you. People make an effort to leave a nice place for their children and grandchildren to live, not for other people's children, they can extend that to many more people and that is what we call society, but not to everybody. That's what we call the social contract and that's what independence of African countries is also based on. Natural rights of all man to be part of a society that is good to them. But that last part is made, it doesn't happen by itself, it's not found but requires debate, organization and hard work. I happen to be from one of the most inhabitable, unliveable places on earth that was plagued by violent imperialists much more than most parts of Africa, but it was made nice for me by my ancestors, for me and not for you. I see black people as equal to me, I don't see black people as African becuase that's a matter of geography and not of skin. I see Africans as culturally different, wouldn't say inferior because that's just personal preference but on average culturally not fitting in as well here. If often takes more than one generation to change that. The people who come pretending to be refugees on average don't fit in at all. Their undereducation is irrepairable, they mostly don't work but because there not enough work at their level. Africa wasn't a rich continent of healty people. Up to the 1300's it was probably doing better than Europe but life was hard for everybody. Europe happened to come in a fase of civilization in which development kept accelerating. In all civilizations inventions that made life a little easier used to come 1 every 100 or 1000 years, with the literacy, book printing and scientific revolution combined with the ship technology to use Europe's many navigable waterways and the exchange of goods and ideas, suddenly life improving inventions came every 10 years, and then every year, every month and now each day many things get invented. I am as less part of the evil people that do all kinds of things to people around the world and have as little influence over it. I know Africa takes more of the hit, but that doesn't mean Europeans aren't victims too. The victim mentality is very different though. The bulk of the wealth here is build post colonialism, and during colonialism the contribution to Europe's wealth was no expression of the suffering caused at all. It's was tiny, hardly worth mentioning except for what Britain took from India. I haven't met an African on YT yet who understands where wealth comes from, like it's still 1300 and no European has arrived. You don't get wealthy from robbing, it's not a zero sum game. If everybody got that 4000 dollars in ten years or twenty years it would be divided unequally again, probably more unequal. Wealth is build, not taken. Europeans understand that and understand how. Zero Sum Africans appearently still don't otherwise they would be wealthy. If wealth came from taking it Africans would have been wealthy too. So yes, it is rightfully ours and so far playing the poor refugee that needs help works, but try playing the tough proud African that comes to take what he believes is rightfully through poor thinking and we'll let you drown in the Mediterranean. Make a case for pity or make a case from pride and strength, they don't go together, you've got to pick one. But one thing Europeans created was modern medicine and that's why Africans have far less infant mortality than before the Europeans came too. But Africa keeps a fertility rate like many of the children die in childhood. That means every new generation only has half the land, half "the jungle" to feed off, half the space to live and run businesses while you need double the jobs. Have you seen how tiny Europe is on a true map? We can't solve your problem with immigration and will soon stop trying. The numbers just don't add up. As I explained for a previous video, with all it's flaws, hypocrisy, not delivering on good intentions, letting bad intentions mix in, being condascending, stimulating tribalism for divide and rule, it's still Europe's nice, soft side that you are getting now. If you start going after our wealth that isn't yours at all prepare for European's hard, ugly side. It's not any softer than that of Shaka Zulu, the Ashanti, or whatever zero sum oppressors and enslavers you have had. I advise to start building your own wealth, not getting it, build it. That's the only wealth that lasts and that returns after hard spells.
    1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. Here in the Netherlands we have American car clubs and events. Mostly V8's but it's about American or not and an American saloon that is big with a big engine is called simply an "Amerikaan", everybody but American car guys know enough. It's a seperate subculture. We have filet Americain, which should Armoricain actually (Northern France beef breed)but got misinterpreted long ago. There is a famous "American Hotel" in Amsterdam, often called Americain because of the Grand Cafe with that name in it, it was probably about the architecture, or a certain style of service, or maybe it had an elevator early. 'Short American' was the name of a haircut, the crew cut. American pizza is a thick frozen one that I never tried and I believe that's not just the marketing of just one brand. It's used a lot in other marketing and branding but usually without meaning something outside that specific brand. An American fridge used to be just an XL fridge I believe, and often those had a bit more extravagant styling compared to the boring European fridges. I owned an old one, it wasn't easy to clean because of all the styling. Before the internet people also had a lot of imagination about what was American. And of course we have "Amerikaanse toestanden", " American situations", which is kind of derogatory term for something exaggerated, excessive, hectic, extreme, wild, but from Western culture, often to describe a negative development in society. It's not used to be negative about America, but related to America as the country of unlimited possibilities and a country of extremes.
    1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321.  @Seven-ld9zv  No, it's not. Contrary to the word patriot nation does not derive from the bloodline (the DNA you mention) but from the place of birth. That's natural law, inalienable rights, that people who are born somewhere can live there. Otherwise it would be all right to got somewhere and just take their land. It's also their right to be served by the power over them, otherwise there wouldn't be anything wrong with imperialism and colonialism. The people can change, people can move out and people can move in, by mutual agreement. DNA wil mix as it has always done in the Dutch Republic. Nationalism is build on the idea of 'us', our territory, our jurisdiction, our government, serving us, and therefore very inclusive. Of course it discriminates, our government does not build cycle lanes outside the territory it has jurisdiction over, it builds it for people who have Dutch citizenship, because if citizenship isn't exclusive and for everybody, nobody has citizenship. Nationalism and therefore the nation state is what came out of discarding the divine right of kings and the idea of the social contract. It's a social contract, not a contract with the human species as a whole. Your confusion is because nationalism has been given a bad name by the imperialists, calling themselves globalists these days, if they are that honest at all. Nationalism is opposed to tribalism at one side and opposed to globalism at the other, no surprise the globalists love to team up with the tribalists. Look at the Congolese nationalist Lumumba and his fate for example. There can't be democracy and rule of law without a nation state, nation states are what has brought great prosperity to the ordinary people of Europe. It was imperialism that screwed that up in 1814, and it was imperialism and racism that screwed up in the 1930's, nationalism was not the issue. It was nationalism that failed to defend itself and it was nationalism that got Europe back to peace again. It's imperialism why there is war again. It's just not what it is and your redefinition is propagandistic. Hand over democracy to an imperialistic technocracy or you are a racist. But the good of nationalism is taken for granted, like it could exist without. Even the globalist speak about a nation's people as 'us', about 'our government', our democracy, our rule of law, our 'obligation' to welcome immigrants. But without the us of nationalism it it's every man for himself. Most people like that us, and won't do without, but rhetoric like this is undermining it at the same time. At least the 'no borders' crowd is honest about it and it's clear they haven't thought it through fully.
    1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331.  @oliviahanlim8089  That's what you do after a liberation, you restore the previous government, no matter how much the Indonesian nationalists sided with the Japanese fascists. Secondly it was necesseray to restore order because the Indonesian nationalists who claimed to be ready for independence and need no futher civilization by the Dutch went on a genocidal slaugther of anyone who didn't look indiginous Indonesia enough. Pure racial hatred mass killings of not only the Dutch, but al mixed race and the Chinese. The independence from Japan was not a thing of the Indonesians. The West liberated Indonesia from the Japanese. ​ @Olivia Hanlim No, not really. The violence, the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians for having the wrong skin colour by the Indonesian nationalists in the Bersiap was indeed horrendous. The Dutch attempt to restore order was just another war with it's human rights violations like there are in any war. Not good, and the Dutch should be held to their own (much higher) standards but it was really nothing special. Several platoons that got out of control, but also only a very tiny part of the military operation. The article in your link is full of BS. No knowledge, lots of judgementalism and plain falsehoods. The Dutch are very well aware there was also bad in their history, but since they were the ones introducing the values to the world colonial history is now judged by, they tend to accept that progress is made and therefore the entire past was worse than the present.
    1
  1332. 1
  1333.  @karan.kunwar543  The initial plan of the VOC was to kick some Portuguese ass and bring back silk and spices to pay for the two year journey. The Dutch were at war for their independence from Spain and therefore Portugal, for their existence as religious tolerant, and with it for the rights you now enjoy too thanks to the Dutch. But war and trade were intertwined. You couldn't just send a navy all the way to East-Asia without a network of trading posts, with places to get food and water, it could only work with merchant ships doubling as war ships when the European enemy was found. That's why the government got involved. The Dutch dominance of all European trade was achieved without government involvement and through self employed ship owners and small companies. The Dutch Republic gave the trade monopoly for the whole East of the Cape to the VOC and shareholders were found over the whole country and among almost all classes because it was also to unite the country behind this war effort and the new optimism after securing most of the borders a couple of years earlier, allthough there were still sieges, but the Republic had survived it's most existential threats for now. But they soon found a weak spot in Asia, on the island of Java. From there they could over much more of the seas and also make money trading between Asian nations, what the VOC ended up doing most. But this was far beyond the original plan. They had to invent the stock market so the VOC could reinvest the profits instead of paying dividend to the shareholders it was legally obliged too. The stock exchange allowed the shareholders to cash in while the VOC invested it's profits. The Dutch made it up as they went along forced by war for it's existence, that was also how they became the Dutch Republic in the first place. There was no greater plan, just their invention of capitalism and almost all European kingdoms wanting them destroyed and slaughtered.
    1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378.  @simmons4690  No, added value in the sense that if you have 200 euro E bike battery there's only about 10 euro's in cobalt and lithium and other raw materials in it. This 20 euro has then be divided between a few hundred miners and truckers transporting it to the ship. A remaining 180 euro's has to be divided by about 10 Europeans involved in the manufacturing, processing skilled workers, trained machine operators, marketing, whatever. The rest goes to the shareholder, all of them are consumers products like that. That's how Europe is so wealthy. They don't care if Africa gets more wealthy, they'll pay more for the resources but also sell much more batteries. Probably the latter makes them more money but no one decides on that, it is what it s. Capitalism isn't planned, that's why it's so good and so bad at the same time. So what I am saying that for the continent to get more wealthy, they should do more of the value adding to the raw materials they have, and use the power over the scarce resources to get from the West what they need for that. If Congo would only say you can get our cobalt, but we ship it to you too and you got to pay handsomely for that. Than you have the shipping money too and that would already be an improvement. But Africa could do much more of the processing too, and that's just the start. From there you could do the whole battery. You don't have to like capitalism, but it is there and it's not going anywhere so you have to work it to your advantage.
    1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520.  @dranchd6571  We were filthy rich before any colonies, and we got filthy rich again after WWII without colonies and the people from the former colonies as a financial burden. The Dutch basically weren't part of the colonization of Africa, the British took South-Africa in 1795 and the trading posts in Ghana were taken over a few decades later. Bleeding dry the continent? Africans sold Africans to be moved out of the continent. Europe lost far more people to the America's than Africa did. Why didn't that hurt Europe? I'm not saying African's resources are worthless, I'm saying that African's labour is low in value, and therefore they remain poor. You have resources, but if all you do with them is dig them up or pluck them from a tree you are going to stay poor. Many resources only have value at all because of European technology anyway, so you're lucky there are Europeans, but if you don't know how to use that luck to your advantage, you're not going to make any meaningful progress. Same with Western medicine, you got lucky with that too, but you use the spectacular decrease of child mortality to overpopulate, making labour even cheaper and therefore people poorer. You think we are rich here beause we have warehouses full of raw cacao beans and blocks of cobalt? That's the zero sum thinking, that you can only have something by taking it from another. Europe has moved on from that since the Middle Ages because the Dutch invented modern capitalism. We used cacao beans to make expensive chocolates and tobacco to make expensive cigars to ship and sell to rich people around the world. That's what made us rich, not some colonial crime on the side. Africans used slaves for luxury, to wipe their ass, Europeans used slaves so they could do more work and produce more themselves. They build entire industries on the raw materials they used slaves for, but the money was in those industries not in the slave labour. If the low value labour stays the same, it doesn't matter whether it's done by slaves or free people economically.
    1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. William of Orange wasn't invited by parliament, he invited himself. He was already planning an invasion of England and asked 7 lord parliamentarians to invite him, a plot involving John Locke who lived and worked in the Dutch Republic, to make it look less of an invastion and conquest and avoid bloodshed and future instability. It was his propaganda war, gaining popular and nobility support that He wasn't forced by parliament to accept anything, London was full of Dutch troops and English soldiers weren't allowed near Londen, he had the country occupied and under his control. But his aim was a stable protestant GB with religious tolerance to prevent the Dutch Republic and protestantism alltogether from being ended by catholic absolute monarchs of Europe uniting against the Dutch Republic. England, France, Spain, half of Germany together against the Dutch Republic would be too much and is was already an extremely close call in 1672. As appointed leader of the Dutch Republic, Stadtholder (steward) he already was used to not having absolute power, religious tolerance and the bill of rights was something the Dutch already had (regained) for a century. Het was not a Dutch prince, he was a Dutch civil servant and prince of the principality of Orange in Southern France. The mighty army that invaded wasn't his, it was the Dutch Republic's and the Dutch states that appointed him and provided this army didn't care for his personal glory and power, they did care for not having a catholic enemy in England, they cared a lot.
    1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617.  @maxdavis7722  Oh yes. The Union of Utrecht, from 2 years before the declaration of independence (1581) functioned as the de facto constitution for the Dutch Republic, starring the freedom of conscience and therefore forcing religious tolerance. The Dutch had enjoyed far more extensive civil rights, for rich and poor, since the early 1300's (see Keure van Kortenberg), but it's a bit complex because cities had their own rights and privileges too, the breach of these was a main reason for the Dutch Revolt, and the freedom of conscience and religious freedom the result, that of course was not an issue in the 1300's because there was only one religion. The accounts of English visitors in the 17th century are particularly interesting. They were appalled by the lack of class distinction, especially in public transport (horsedrawn barges), but also very powerfull and rich men in business meating eating sandwiches on the dyke for lunch, that beating of servants was forbidden, that women travelled unaccompanied and spoke up, owned an ran businesses, no wife beating, showed affection to their husbands in public and craftsmen and butchers owning paintings and shares (it was extremely rich too with a huge spending middle class). There was freedom of print, rule of law and a seperate judiciary, civil marriage and rehabilitation programs for small criminals, the poor were taken care of and even orphans got to school. The nuclear family home was already the standard, sexual joy withing marriage was encouraged, the clitoris was widely known about, there was permissiveness in woo-ing, the puritan Pilgrim Fathers didn't leave the Dutch Republic for nothing. Especially during Johan de Witt's reign when William III and his family (about the only relevant nobles left) was sidelined it was a meritocracy, he was from a family of woodstackers and the national hero was admiral who was the son of a beer carrier. With the English royals sidelined too because of Cromwell, they were driven towards eachother resulting in William III's later wife having somewhat of a claim to the English throne. That very republican Netherlands ended in 1672 with the combined attack of Louis XIV from France, England and catholic German states and William III was appointed in the job of stadtholder by Dutch parliament, an army leader among other things, just like some of his ancestors. This was after De Witt was torn apart by a mad crowd blaming him for neglecting the country's defence. That was his motivation to invade England. Because the Dutch Republic would not survive another combined catholic attack and that would probably mean the end of his faith, protestantism, too. William III was a bit too king like for the republic, but he was not power hungry or absolutist at all. He arranged the invation himself while already preparin the invasion by conspiring and asking them to invite him, that letter has been found. it was his initiative and made the invasion into a huge propaganda campaign because he wanted a stable protestant ally, it wasn't glory he was after. His soldiers had to be on their best behaviour and would get severly punished when speaking about invasion or conquest, he was the liberator. He came as a showman on a white horse and brought a printing press. It's not like the 7 lord parliamentarians had any power themselves but it helped faking the legitimacy of taking the throne, in the end it was the ruling king that fled to France with a nose bleed, otherwise it would have been bloody battles. I also wonder how parliament was supposed to force him to accept a parliamentary monarchy and bill of rights, since no British soldier was allowed near London for two years. Later he complained regarding parliament that he felt like he was king of the Dutch Republic and stadtholder of England, but dealing with opposition and making compromises was how politics had been for ages in the Netherlands. So it was basically the most old-fashioned Dutch government in a century making England in it's own image and thereby modernizing it hugely. Of course the English were ready for it, because it was good, especially after so much turmoil, blood and instability. But that doesn't mean the English were ready to make it happen themselves, they hadn't and they didn't. Of course presenting it as their own revolution and as legitimate royaltywise helped cementing it rather than giving opponents the opportunity of claiming it's illegitimate and foreign.
    1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. I don't fully agree, allthough I do agree that neocolonialism is not an improvement on the late colonial era. Actually the Dutch trade empire resembled the current American empire most, only it was far less bloody. These problems exist not so much because of the seeds, but because of the interests of people in those seeds and what might grow out of it. I noticed a perspective difference that is used for that. I as a Western European (Dutch) I've been raised with the idea that the past was terrible and it is or should get better by the decade, and I feel part of that, believe in can play a role in that and my country the Netherlands always has. But most Africans had history happening to them, they tend to think less in terms of progress over time, but in continents and races that are bad, not just the past. They also tend not to have internalized capitalism and 'value added'. For me as a European is completely logical that the one who adds the most value, whether that's through a process or bringing it to the rich people who can pay more for it, earns the most. Many Africans on the internet still think in zero sum, like African slave labour or modern African labour makes people in the West rich. You want to get wealth, you have to take something from another. It doesn't, it was and is the processing of sugar or cacao and selling it to rich people that makes the money. Sugar and cacao at the plantation are cheap, in the harbour already a bit more expensive, but when made into pralines the value of the ingredients goes up thousands of times. That has not changed after colonialism.
    1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. Very telling about Belgian cuisine is that their star products are actually Dutch. The 'Zeeuwse mosselen' are from the Zealand province of the Netherlands and are the best in the world, but it's Belgians that appreciate them fully. I'm sure that if the French or the Thai had mussels like that, they wouldn't use cream or coconut cream sauces becaue it's weakens the tast, which is very much like the concentrated smell of the North Sea. The Fries are made from Bintjes, a Dutch very tasty breed, but the Dutch simply don't care enough and use a potato that is easier to breed and peel, and don't bother with double frying and use vegetable oil. Many Flemish do the latter too lately, which is a shame. That's why I prefer Walloon fries, often 1 or 2 mm thicker also, over Flemish fries. Dutch mayo certainly doesn't qualify as the 'queen of sauces' like in Belgium. Which also knows lobsters with mayonaise, and lobster is and was an expensive and fancy food in this part of Europe. The chocolate also originates in the Netherlands, which still has very good chocolate. But the Belgians take to another level by combining it with other tastes and make little pieces of art out of it. They just take care, they love the simple things, don't use particularly fancy or expensive products but put in a lot of attention and effort. That's probably why Belgium excells in my view in relatively simple bistro food. Stews, steak frites, shrimp croquettes, things like that. Not that there aren't very good fancy restaurants in Belgium, especially Brussels with all that EU folk, but that's not Belgium's specialty.
    1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685.  @OblivionGate  This is not about glory. This is about the fact that the British can't do what all the others can, celebrate your national glory in an international sport. The British feel entitled to make it their sport and moan about their dead royal on the podium of an international even in Italy. The British can't just have a national favourite, it has to be everybody's favourite and everybody has got to adore him. They have to claime the entire sport as theirs just because they have been very good at it for the past decade or the not so British Mercedes has decided that it was better to have the F1 team away from the factory. A WDC always is to some degree up to the car but not to the same degree. It's not that hard to roughly determine to what degree by looking at the cars and the drivers. When a mediocre driver like Bottas drives his car to 4 poles in 2021, that Mercedes must have been a very fast car. We also can simply establish that the Mercedes era was unique in F1 history in how the rules and the only little rule changes protected the supremacy of car for 8 seasons, while in the past the supremacy of a car maxed out within two seasons. Schumacher only ended up in a superior car after making inferior cars into title challengers, and even winning 5 WDC's with them. It's not like his teammates were ever only outqualified 6 to 4 like Hamilton did, that was 9-1 or better, same for the races. His teammates didn't get 2nd in the WDC either until the last 2 WDC's when the car finally was indeed superior. Vettel is far less impressive as a supreme driver, but the stole WDC's in good car from what was a small team before the claws of the big guns of McLaren and Ferrari with Hamilton and Alonso. Eventually he had a superior car for a season, but even then his teammate didn't manage to come 2nd in the WDC any time. Hamilton never managed to come 2nd in the WDC against Vettel in the Red Bull, his teammate Jenson Button did become 2nd in the same very good McLaren. The Vettel years were actually quite brilliant because we had 3 matching cars and 4 matching drivers, but the youngest driver in the low budget car ran away with them all, snatched the titles without being superior in 3 of 4 seasons. Shame you couldn't enjoy that because your national favourite didn't perform well. That's different from a supreme car like the late 80's McLaren, the early 90's Williams, the 98 and 99 McLaren. Really dominant cars with the 2nd driver also driving to many poles and wins. Drivers used to start in some backmarker and show themselves, then get in a car that could maybe win but not challenge for the title, and then get a seat in one of the three teams that could possibly win a WDC, in which they enjoyed only one or two years of a dominant car. Hamilton is a good driver, but without this uniquely long supremacy of a car, he would have been a 2 time WDC winner probably. He underachieved at McLaren too after his excellent debut year. He has had the best cars of any driver in history, by far. Best prepared young driver for F1 in history too, privileged, protected and groomed since he was 13. It's almost like the entitled British made sure a Brit got in this unique position for his whole F1 career. I can accept the first race was at Silverstone. I accept there's a wonderful legacy of the garagists. I accept the British are big in the sport in several ways. I don't accept this makes it a British sport just like the Elgin Marbles, capitalism and the sandwich aren't British but simply appropriated by a culture that has a sense of entitlement at it's core.
    1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. ​ @bryanbarnes9204  I'm not surprised at all, I already did know. But when it comes to empire, it's usually the most imperial that manages that, not the most fair. Just like we have polticians that are the best at becoming powerfull, not the ones that know how to use that power for the good. We didn't get the Roman Empire because of it's engineering, but because of it's military power over often much more peaceful cultures. No, the Europeans seeing themselves as the leaders of the world is not racist at all. Contrary to US Americans and Africans, Europeans tend to think in terms of progress over the ages, progress they made for the whole world in particularly the last 500 years. We are very well aware that a 1000 years ago we were mostly dumb peasants living sorry, extremely harsh lives, while in other parts of the world there were awesome civilizations. There have always been these mythical places of great wealth far away like Xanadu, Eldorado and Timbuktu. Probably because it was ours, we are aware of the great change that happened around the 1500's when European civilization did no longer progress like other civilizations, but got into a stage of ever accelarating progress, thanks to literacy, the printing press, freedom of thought and the scientific revolution. The technological progress made the Europeans getting more powerful much faster than any empire ever, they didn't become the most powerful because they were the most violent or brutal. So that explains why they ended worldwide slavery and gave colonies their independence. So we lead because we happen to be ahead in this era of globalization, and we have to lead becasue we are more good hearted culturally than the Americans and the Chinese. There is nothing racist about that, it's from the idea that Africans hadn't had that luck. That idea is fading because we tend not to deliver, despite good intentions, because evil forces from within and our American friends are stronger and because we are weakening ourselves. Europeans did not capture Africans for slavery themselves because getting inland would shorten their average life expectancy to 11 months because of diseases. That's also why the colonization of Africa only happened after advances in medicine and also after slavery. It was actually North Africans that did hunt for slaves to abduct on Europe's coasts. But the subsaharan Africans don't complain against the people that treated them the worst, the North Africans, the Arabs and fellow subsaharan Africans, because only the Europeans have empathy in their culture, they are the only ones sensitive to the argument of fairness.
    1
  1705. 1
  1706.  @bryanbarnes9204  Your missing the point. Civilizations have always been a bit more ahead or lagging behind eachtother in terms of sophistication and technology. There's a good case to be made that around 1400 the civilization in the area of for example Benin or Togo was more advanced than that of the Portuguese visiting there. The difference between Europe in the 1500's and all previous civilizations progress reached a state of continuous accelleratation of progress, a state we are still in. Differences in technology between civilizations used to develop over hundreds of years, all of a sudden the balance of power kept shifting over half a century or even a couple of decades. That made the West all powerfull in the 18th century, while in the 17th century the Europeas still had to be humble and bring presents otherwise the silk dress sophisticated Moghuls or Chinese would send those smelly ill mannered water peasants away without any trade happening. This could never have happened in Africa, because the harsh, wet, cold continent of Europe became an advantage as ship technology developped and the Europeans suddenly had all these navigable waterways and saiing skills to conquer oceans. Trade took over from agriculture as the biggest income, while Africa's geography sucks for the exchange of goods and idea's. Nice you mentioned the Dutch, they actually went to Indonesia for war reasons, as they were fighting for their independence and religious freedom, without that any African or Asian here would still get a red hot spike op their butt for not believing in god in the right catholic way. Without the Dutch winning there would be no freedom of religion, no freedom of expression, no people's souvereignty and no upward social mobility anywhere. The Europeans didn't reign supreme because they were better at imperial oppression, harsher, more powerful with bigger armies like previous empires, but because of their technology. The Dutch had the best ship technology and dominated all European trade with 20.000 to 30.000 ships, and you tell me they got rich from those 160 ships of peak VOC sailing for a year from Indonesia? The whole Asian trade never made more money than the good old herring fishery. They were filthy rich well before the VOC finally started paying dividends in 1633 and they only gave up to their objection to the transatlantic slavery in 1637. The WIC was a financial failure throughout it's entire history anyway. So the Dutch were filthy rich before any substantial colonial income, the unfair trade outside Europe was not more than 1% of all the trade they did and they did a lot more than trade, they got plundered by the French under Napoleon and until the late 1800's a third of Amsterdam was on food charity whil living in slums while in the East of the country people were living in mud houses digging up peat, wasn't part of the carving up of Africa at all and then the country got wrecked by Nazi Germany again and now we are rich because of that 1% of the trade that was unfair? Really? If you don't understand how countries become wealthy your own country probably won't become wealthy. Ireland started on the backfoot too, was also colonized and oppressed by the English, including forced labour and famine. Ireland is wealthy now, because they haven't embraced that victim mentality and don't keep moaning about how there was stolen from them and how England got rich off them. No one got a fair deal in history besides England, France, Germany, Turkey, Sweden, the USA and Switzerland. The rest has been victim of imperialism at some point in some way.
    1
  1707.  @bryanbarnes9204  That's backward racial thinking in my view. Of course there is European heritage in culture in the USA, but it's nonsense to see them as the same particularly in relation to colonialism and neocolonialism. De Boers are not Dutch either. You make culture into race, and that's racist. Slavery is a relatonship with a strong power imbalance that can and has taken many different shapes and degrees of horror. But the narrative that all European slavers were cruel and African enslavers were noble is racist nonsense. Just like the idea that genocides in Africa were because of the Europeans. Africa has a history of atrocity including slavery and genocide that could easily match Europe's. The Zulu's get a free pass for their genocides because they are black, and the Boers who only arrived a few hundred years later get all the blame allthough they were not genocidal, because they are white. If Europeans mix up race and culture like that, they are racist and in a very old fashioned way. I don't agree with France's neocolonialims but you've got to realize that the demand for resources comes from technology. European technology is an opportunity for Congo, a gift, they have all this cobalt that was useless to them, but thanks to Europeans it is now valuable and the many people there are thanks to European medicine can be fed with the rewards for the work of extracting it. But somehow Africans manage to become victim of such a gift and that's not because they are black but because of culture.
    1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735.  @HistoryHustle  I do believe the media in general and even the superficial WNL have been pretty one-sided, and this also seems to be the fashion among historians. - The calculation of the profits from the slavetrade you mentioned is flawed and done to have the highest outcome possible. - The Arab, Ottoman, Barbaric and African (Ghanaian) slave trade are ignored. - The fact that the Republic was already very rich before in entered the slave trade or even started to make profit from Indonesia is ignored. Even Piet Hein, an opponent of slavery and opression, who has freed slaves and has been enslaved himself gets slandered. Just like the whole fact that the WIC refused to get in the slavetrad for ethical reasons until it felt forced to do so (on conditions). - There's this constant repitition of the statement that we got rich by colonization and slavery, which is simply false. And there is suggestion as there was slavery in the Netherlands itself. - A lot of false statements, like the Netherlands was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. They weren't among the first European nations, that's true and quite embarassing, but many countries were much later. But anything goes these days, facts don't matter. - The whole recent history of the Netherlands of antiracism and equality is denied. Like it was the USA out here in the 50's and 60's. - The Dutch media in general are fully committed to join and enforce the hype. Half the papers are about racism or what is supposed to be racism, the public broadcaster has rearranged all scheduals for weeks to support the narrative.  This is all catering to the BLM idea of white people bad racist and black people innocent victims. As you point out this might lead to the absurd situation that people who have actually done forced labour (German occupation) or descent from people who have been enslaved by North-Africans, have to apologize to people who never had to do forced labour and who descent from slavetraders, just because one is white and the other one is black. I'd call that racist.
    1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. I only partly agree. Don't let the anti European bitterness over failed independence result in anti-intellectualism. It's important to study insects, to be curious, to stimulate learning for the sake of learning because no one knows what the economic opportunities of the future might be. Tokyo has an efficient metro system based on the study of funghi. Study of ants made elevators more efficient. Our health is helped a lot by a vocationally trained 17th century Dutch draper inspector developping lenzes for curiosity and discovering microbiology. But we also see Britain and the USA getting more than half of the children through university. That's all about classism, university used to be the education of the upper classes, so sending people of humble beginnings to university is moving them up in class, not getting rid of class. It's pointless, only the smartest 10% of students is properly served with university education. Anticlassist is to respect vocational training, to respect people working with their brains and their hands. Germany does that much better, there an elektrician is a highly qualified, well trained professional, it's a good job. You'll need them all. But what's really lacking, at least in the comment sections, is understanding of global capitalism. Africans understand better than anyone how unfair it is, but that understanding is not going to make it work for Africans. I see people here say Europeans should pay more for the cacao in their chocolate, but that's not how capitalism works. If you want more money out of the profitable chocolate business you got to do more of it than picking the raw cacao beans. If you want to make more money out of the battery minerals you should do more of the battery production. Europeans didn't get rich from slavery, if people got rich from slavery Africans would be the richest. Europeans used slave labour to build sugar, tobacco and cotton industries, and most of what they earned with that was made after the slave labour, in the shipping, in the refinery, in the processing, in the marketing, in making it into an end product. That's where the money is, not in picking or digging, not in the work that any unskilled people can do.
    1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876.  @easymoneycresus  I'm not acting like your saviour, that's why I don't respond positively to Africans begging for hand outs. A lot of Europeans have the best intentions for Africa but they failed, fail and will fail to deliver on it. You may trust their intentions but don't trust their promises because they are not capable of keeping them. My point is that you have to make it in a capitalistic world, thanks to the Dutch, and that's not fair to anybody allthough it tends to work out nice for those who accept that. The money is not at the bottom of the production chain, so you won't get a 'fair' price for the raw materials. Letting free men do what used to be slave labour won't make them wealthy, they'll just have to worry about their own housing and food. The Africans here mostly came as beggars. Begging for a house and welfare after they crossed many safe countries as 'refugees'. Or begging to be legalized after they came illegally. As a group, they are an economic burden. The black players of France aren't Africans, because France isn't in Africa. They were born in France, were taught football in France by French coaches on French pitches. The pride of Africa, Morocco that looks down on black Africa, consist mostly of players that were born in Europe and learend to play football in Europe. The 5 million Europeans with Moroccan background produced more good players than the 40 Million Moroccans in Morocco. What exactly that Morocco has done for it's football should Morocco be proud of? Why would you be proud of French players? France only shows how much talent African countries manage to waste.
    1
  1877.  @easymoneycresus  That's your inferiority complex speaking here, not mine. Europeans say the discovered America because they did, to them it was a discovery. It wasn not the native Americans sailing over to Europe and then bringing them back to show them their continent. The Europeans were the ones crossing the oceans, not the Americans, Asians or Africans. Europeans made the maps they used sailing from European ports. No one told Africans to use European maps, you could have used your own African world maps to sail to Europe and claim you discovered it, but you didn't and there weren't any. Same with history. The Europeans started doing historiography for themselves. Why don't you read African history books from the 17th century? Because they didn't write any. It's Europeans who did the archeology in Egypt and elsewhere in Africa, not the Africans because they didn't care about the past. Now they are obsessed with the past. I'm not claiming Europeans are extra special in the history of mankind. But they had the navigable waterways that connected them and spread knowledge and resulted in a civilization that contrary to all others before, kept developping faster and faster. What happened the past 500 years in Europe is different from all civilizations before in the sense that with literacy, book printing and the scientific revolution, progress kept accellerating. There were more inventions in 17th century Netherlands than in the 10.000 years before, in the whole world. That has connected the whole world and changed the whole world. The Chinese were far ahead on the Europeans until the 1700's, but with the speed of development Europe picked up they just raced past them. Same with Benin and Togo a bit earlier, with India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire. You can bemaon that, but it's also the reason not more than half of your brothers and sisters died before the age 12. It is what it is and you can work with it or remain stuck in the past in bitterness and pretend it was the genetic evil of the Europeans that made them rich.
    1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909.  @BertrandNelson-Paris  It's true that the French cars were traditionally a bit lighter and more compact than their German equivalents, but the Germans came to define the classes forcing the French to upscale a little. Otoh, with the DS and it's superior suspension, especially regarding comfort, it still had a piece of the luxury market. The DS was not a cheap car abroad. But Citroen in particular had difficulty taking it's place in the higher end of the middle class and the luxury market because of 3 failed engine projects and it's legacy. The DS was undermotorized because the boxer6 failed, the GS was undermotorized because the birotor failed, the CX was undermotorized because the triroter didn't even take off after that. So in wanting to get rid of the DS main weakness, they were left with an engine bay only fitting a 1.2 for the GS, which is modest for the top of the range, and only a 4 cylinder for the CX which maxes out around 2.4 litre. The turbo, not a Citroen idea, allowed the CX to be a good performing car in the autumn of it's life but that was kind of a gift. They couldn't fit or find a 3.0 V6, which would be very much becoming for the top of the range limousine. I'm also convinced the BX would have been car of the year if it was introduced with the 1.9, but they already had to up displacement from it's predecessor, the GS and started losing on power and torque to the competition right away. By the time they fitted a V6 in the XM, it wasn't the most lively 6 on the market, same with the C6. After so much undermotorization for so long, the image was that of a buy for comfort, not "a driver's car", instead of superior comfort for the same handling and power it could have been.
    1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. They aren't Africans, as the Netherlands isn't in Africa and further North. Tijani Reijnders mother is half Ambonese, Ambon has strong ties to the Netherlands for about 3 times longer than the Southern province of Limburg. Her first name is Angelina, in their Indonesian tradition of giving their Netherlands born children European names rather than old fashioned Dutch ones, but not Indonesian. Just like they weren't taught Indonesian or Malayan at home but proper Dutch by their grandparents. They called their son Tijani, a Nigerian name, just because they liked the name, just like there are lots of Yuris, Björns, Marios, Johns, Svens, Jaris and Kevins in the Netherlands. It just doesn't get much more Dutch than Tijani Reijnders. That's a whole different story than fake African and Middle-Eastern refugees coming in by the thousands and getting Dutch citizenship for being on welfare and taking up scarce social housing for 5 years, bypassing the waiting list. Those people and the guest workers that refused to go back their children and grandchildren often don't even want to play for the country they live and have a citizenship from. They call half of their sons Mohammed to apparently make the point the Dutch shouldn't be able to keep them apart and see them as Dutch individuals. These are two completely different things. Many dark skin and Asian features is the product of history and integrating those people since forever. We don't have such a history with the Middle-East or even Africa at all.
    1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955.  @supercoeledude  Toen ik studeerde was dat nog exclusief voor de beste leerlingen en was het vaak van een dusdanig abstractieniveau dat je echt de volledige beheersing van je moedertaal nodig had om de materie in woorden te kunnen vatten. Nederlanders die denken dat ze met Engels net zo goed uit de voeten kunnen als met het Nederlands formuleren niet op academisch niveau. Een master thesis over Vondel in het Engels moeten schrijven om uit te leggen hoe goed die van de eigenaardigheden van het Nederlands gebruikt maakt is gewoon pure onzin. Toen ik studeerde waren buitenlandse studenten die iets extra's hadden en een extra ervaring wilden. Dat was ook waardevol omdat ze een andere taal moesten leren en vaak zelfs op academisch niveau zien te beheersen, en moesten ze zich maar zien te redden in een vreemd land. Dat had meerwaarde. Ik heb ook buitenlandse huisgenoten gehad en die waren allemaal slechter in Engels en het was best leuk maar je blijft toch op een bepaald niveau van conversatie steken. Maar als je dan de hele dag op de universiteit ook nog in steenkolenengels moet communiceren dan wil je dat ook nog niet eens in je huis. Zeker niet als het mensen zijn die niks extra's hebben, maar verwachten dat notabene de universiteit of de HBO-school, tegenwoordig university, een gespreid bedje voor hen regelt. Dus in de loop van de tijd heeft zich dat ontwikkeld van een waardevol buitenlands avontuur tot het consumeren van een all in opleiding. Er zijn positieve economische effecten van buitenlandse studenten, maar 'goed voor de economie' betekent doorgaans stijging BNP of BBP. Met meer mensen wordt je economie groter ja, maar immigratie is een armoedige manier om het BNP te vergroten en verhoogt het BNP per capita niet, integendeel vaak. Als je faalt om de arbeidsproductiviteit te laten stijgen kun je altijd nog meer mensen binnenhalen, de Nederlanders dragen de lasten wel en de exploderende huizenprijzen door oa de toegenomen vraag telt ook mee voor het BNP terwijl niemand daar iets aan heeft. Als je nou wil dat mensen met veel talent in Nederland komen studeren om daarna te blijven, dan zou het juist zinniger zijn dat ze Nederlands hebben moeten leren. Nu is het toch vaak studeren op kosten van de Nederlandse belastingbetaler, en dan gaan werken in een land waar je geen belasting betaalt zodat de volgende generatie kans studeren. Hoe dan ook is er visie nodig, ipv inernationalisering om de internationalisering maar door te laten gaan. Maar wellicht ben jij zo iemand aan wie de studie niet besteed was, verspilde moeite, paarlen voor de zwijnen. Aan mensen die je een kunstje hebben leren doen is het idee van visie meestal niet besteed.
    1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965.  @SamAronow  Stop presenting YT clickbait as fact. No proof of DeWitt being eaten whatsoevver. The Orangists where not monarchists, there was no dictatorship restored, the stadtholders were usually from the Orange Nassau family but appointed by Dutch parliaments for eacht of the 7 provinces. The conflict was about the loose federation, with the province of Holland calling the shots and being protected by the water and an inundation line, and a tighter federation with an army protecting the dryer provinces with the stadtholder as commander in chief. The neglect of the land defences by the Statists (Staten being the name of the Dutch parliaments) led by DeWitt had allowed the French to invade and occupy most of the country, but not Holland. The British fought along the French with their navy trhough the secret treaty of Dover, betraying the Dutch Republic and backstabbing DeWitt, and the Germans joined in with the bishopries of Cologne and Munster too. So the Orangists were proven right as the Dutch Republic was at the brink of total annihilation. Once appointed stadtholder by parliaments, these Orange-Nassau fellowes proved themselved capable to excellent military leaders usually and stadtholder Willem III saved the country, and would later successfully invade and conquer Britain. He became king of England, Scotland and Ireland, but was not a de facto monarch of the Dutch Republic. That's just not how monarchy worked in the days of the divine right of kings and absolute monarchism. A monarch was sent by god through inheretance. Monarch was not a word for a position of political power, stadtholder was an office to be appointed in meaning steward. Before the declaration of independence the stadtholder was a steward to the king for one or more of the 17 Netherlands (provinces, the Southern 10 remained Spanish). The Dutch Republic let in many piss poor Azkhenazi jews from the East too. The economic impact of the Sephardim was tiny too because global trade and the jewish network and knowledge in that was futile compared to the Dutch Republic's dominance of the far bigger European trade, basically taking over the Hanseatic League in particular. Allthough the VOC sneaked some through in the East, the Dutch Republic did not take part in the transatlantic slave trade until 1637 either.
    1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. What a load of BS. The jewish community was small and less than one percent of the traders. The Dutch had more merchant ships in the huge European trade than all of the others combined. The Dutch Republic was only early in the 80-years war for independence and religious tolerance with Spain and Portugal. The VOC was founded to attack the Portuguese Asian income and pay for it with it's own trade, it was given a monopoly East of the Cape for that reason. The stock was handled by the chambers of the VOC, which werer spread out over several cities to make it a national war entreprise. After the first succesfull trade missions, the VOC saw a lot more opportunity than just robbing some Portuguese ships and buying some silk, and profit needed to be reinvested. Since many shareholders were very ordinary people who couldn't wait long for ROI, they were offered the opportunity to sell their share at the De Keyser exchange and most shares ended up with the rich who had the patience and the maids and carpenter investors had their ROI in cash. Again, the Bank of Amsterdam had nothing to do with it. The Amsterdamse Wisselbank was the biggest in Europe because it made money reliable and functioned as the first central bank. It was in the biggest trading hub of Europe in the country of by far the biggest traders in Europe. That's also why the Dutch were already filthy rich when the VOC started to pay it's first dividends in 1633, 31 years after it's foundation. The whole VOC with it's lousy 200 merchant ships at it's peak was peanuts for the Dutch economy. Land reclamation had nothing to do with it either. This is really like 'I know (false) only 2 things about the Netherlands so they must be connected'.
    1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004.  @nagast3185  Not it's not similar. One was in the past, we don't do that anymore, we decolonized from our own free will, from a position of power we just like the rest of the West gave up power of people and lands. Unique in the history of mankind. People from the colonies asked for independence, convinced they could do it by themselves better, and got it. That was the deal, we don't need you anymore and we don't want you anymore. Fair enough, but then they messed up and now they all start moaning about colonization again and begging for money. They don't stick to their part of the deal and are beggars once again, it's embarassing. They claimed they wanted to end racism, but now farmers that have been there for centuries and took unused land can't keep feeding the people because they are white, embarassing. I don't know how colonized Africa was feeding itself before, but it had far less mouths to feed because Western medicine and it lowering especially infant mortarlity drastically caused the population growth. A far bigger population that is sustained by Western farming methods. You act like you want to turn back the clock 1.5 century for most of Africa, but you really don't because that would mean just 200 million Africans, every other child dying before the age of 10, primitive agriculture and hunter gatherers, and enslaving one another. De new democratic government of Suriname got billions in reperation, about 30K per inhabitant, and the land of course. Suriname wasn't much more than a peace of South American jungle before the Dutch made something out of it. Half of the population moved to the Nehterlands were they got free higher education and stuff, but a lot actually stayed on welfare. The king apologized because of pressure from an America inspirid activist movement supported by the racist left that doesn't really believe blacks are equal and should be handed advantages and gifts. Ironically the Netherlands had been a republic for over 200 years, and the first king abolished the slave trade in his first year in charge.
    1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062.  @assouankoffi9456  Maybe it doesn't need Europe anymore but without European knowledge it couldn't have reached this population, and could not have sustained it. Africa also can't protect itself from China, it could colonize the whole continent with miilitary force in a year. I'm the first to admit that Europe is only half decent and simply doesn't deliver on it's good intentions, but that's one half more decent than China or the Arabs or Africa itself. On the resources it's very simple, who is doing somethign with it? Gold, diamonds and ivory are about the only ones that are and were valuable without Western technology. It's the Europeans that studied what was in the soil and how it could be used. And the manufacturers using it are still in Europe or off shored. It's in the processing of raw materials and the end products where the wealth is because there is the value added and there are the skilled workers making good wages. The cacao bean picker earns far less than the chocolatier. The machine operator in a battery factory earns more than the cobalt mining children. There is too much naivity towards China and too much resentment towards Europe. Mainly because the resentment is not productive, not helpful. It's also only partially justified, but skeptic, suspicious attitude towards it's intentions and it's competence to deliver on it's good intentions is only sensible. But there is no big plan to keep Africa poor. The plan is to let capitalism do what it does and then Europe will do the top the production chain. You have the cobalt and coltan needing industries that like the Congo poor, but you also have the Sneaker and electronics manufacturers that would like Africans to be more wealthy and spend more on their products. It's also not important at all that the cobalt is very cheap. It could be twice the price, that wouldn't really matter fundamentally, but they can't just pay the miners double because they loose out to competition. They are stuck in the system too, stuck in nicer place, but still stuck. And Africa could do with a bit less blaming Europe and more blaming itself. Someone here said that the West killed all the good leaders. I can think of a few examples but that also means there have been very little good leaders because not that many were killed by the West, and usually with the help Africans. Basically African countries wanted independence asap because they could do it themselves, they got it, failed, and now the West is to blame again? It's a tough world out there and maybe they weren't as ready as they thought? I got a suspicion they aren't ready for dealing with China without Europe yet either.
    1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085.  @onurbschrednei4569  If you land a fleet bigger than the armada, march in with 40.000 troops, after a few skirmeshes have the legitimate king flee to France with a nosebleed and then occupy the capital and allow no British soldiers near for years and take the crown, that's an invasion, occupation and conquest by any definition. That he held an impressive propaganda campaing to win the hearts and minds of the people for a stable future as Duch ally does not change the facts on the ground. He wasn't invited, he contacted a few rather powerless parliamentarians while preparing the invastion and asked them to invite him an invitation letter as part of this propaganda, which also included speeches, dressing for the occasion, bringing a printing press for pamphlets and severe punishment for soldiers using words like invasion instead of liberation and not being on their best behaviour towards the people. There was nothing happening in Britain but the king taking absolute catholic control until the Dutch made it happen, without any real help. The Spanish Empire was by far the mightiest of that time, the biggest blow might have been the Netherlands stopping paying taxes, they were very rich and paid more than half of all tax income of the Spanish Empire. But they were the most highly acclaimed and feared army and got their asses handed to him in over a hundred of battles and sieges. In 1579 the Dutch declared freedom of conscience, introducing religious freedom. In 1581 they declared a king had to serve his people, respect the inalienable rights of the people and by becoming a tyrant, he had left the throne. The Dutch printed more than half of Europe's books anyway, but they had freedom of print and thought. It was the birth place of the enlightenment. Not only did the philosophers of the englightenment have their ideas printed there, Rene Descartes was practically Dutch, he served in the Dutch army and lived and wrote his works there. Spinoza is just as Dutch as Erasmus of course, but also John Locke lived and wrote his most important works in the Dutch Republic. He basically only had to have a peak out of the window for inspiration. He was asked by William to accompagny is wife on the trip to London for his coronation. The Dutch Republic managed to fend off the aggressive medieval monarchies and when they started to team up it got a bit too much to handle so they decided to conquer one and modernize it, pull it out of the Dark Ages so it would be a durable ally. It was the example to all that a different kind of state and a different kind of society was not only possible, but also doing great. In the two centuries since Dutch independence the ideas the Dutch stumbled upon as they went along in their revolt and war for independence got more ordered and sophisticated, but nor the American DOI or the French revolution were firsts in Western civilization. I'm struggling to think of British contributions to the enlightenment and Germany was mostly later on. Enligthenment is of course a bit difficult when you are still forcing people to believe in your god like you do.
    1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. Citroen was so forward thinking it switched to front wheel drive in 1930's. They made all the rest instantly backward with the DS in 1955. Top Gear's James May did a nice 5 minute item on it's spectacular innovations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_jtj6S8zZg Also very special is the Citroen SM from 1971, it was a sleak coupe with a Maserati engine. It's marvellous and very forward thinking too, the issue is that the earlier DS left so little uncharted territory, so little room for further innovation. Same for the later CX. The C6 was the last proper Citroen with the hydropneumatic system, also a luxury car. The Xantia V6 Activa deserves a special mention because it had active suspension in the mid 90's and could go around the corners very fast with no roll at all. Citroens nor the 2CV aren't normal or regular in Europe either, there were a lot of them but they were always different, excentric. Most were sold in France, the Netherlands has the most Citroen lovers relatively, in Germany and Britain they weren't very popular, admired maybe, but not bought very much. The hydropneumatic system did the suspension, the brakes, the power steering and the semi automatic, but the suspension was so good that Rolls Royce payed royalties to use it on it's rear axles for comfort, and Mercedes used it for the entire suspension on it's 450 SEL 6.9 litre, it's super expensive top model that was twice as expensive as the top of the line up to then, the 450 SEL 4.5 litre, and about the same price as a Rolls Royce.
    1
  2131.  @julesjules7097  There is always something wrong with the WDC's of non-British drivers, did you notice that. Schumacher was the no 1. driver of the whole of F1 within half a season of joining F1. 1,5 seconds a lap faster than Hamilton fanboy Herbert, 3 tenths faster than 3 times WDC Piquet, hot young talent Irvine would be able to compete with him, but he turned out to be over 0.3 s slower, then the next great Brazilian talent Barrichello, the same. I'm sure their contract allowed to be at least 2 tenths closer? Of course it did, their contracts allowed them to be as fast as they could, they just couldn't keep up. Only once Barrichello got team orders to let the win, because only once he was faster all weekend. Of course the toxic British chauvinists were eager to let him claim he was the moral WDC. Because a non Brit can't be the best and the best ever. Nevermind Schumacher had nerve damage, was old and had been 3 years out, we just use that to talk him down. Just like they shamelessly use the fact that his accident prevents him of speaking to talk him down even further. Hamilton, the most privileged driver since the age of 13 and favoured by McLaren, was already declared 10 times WDC after half a season in F1. And then came Vettel, winning in a F Torro Rosso and turning the young limited budget team of RBR to a title challenger and beating the absolute top team of that era McLaren, with either Button or Hamilton as the best driver. Hamilton was liability, made huge and stupid errors, couldn't handle pressure, screwed his team, he had been a huge dissappointed. So Ross Brawn stepped in to create the most supreme car for by far the longest time in the history of F1 for Hamilton. The not so great Rosberg could have been 8 times WDC with that thing easily, but it was about being British, the affirmative action, the British privilege mobile, the DEI Daimler Benz was build and after a few years, Hamilton got a mediocre teammaat, a hastily found replacement driver, that was only faster than him in a quarter of the races. As soon as that ended, Hamilton proved to be nothing very special.
    1
  2132. 1
  2133. Isn't there any American on the internet who can get his facts straight? - The Dutch didn't came to favour the idea of self rule and a political republic after the 80-year war. It was the Dutch Republic that fought 80 years for the self rule it established in 1581 with it's declaration of independence, which is remarkably simular to the American DOI from 2 centuries later. So when Verrmeer painted this girl, around 1665, the republican idea of painting common people was already very well established. - The VOC, or Dutch East-India company, didn't spearhead business innovation. It was the product of business innovation of an already very succesful merchant class that saturated the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Mediterranean See with Dutch ships and moved East themselves because Portugal where the got the Asian spices from had become united with enemy Spain. Even merchant's maids were buying shares when the VOC was established and wouldn't return any profits for many years to come. - Given the fact that even the enormous VOC only made a tiny contribution to the economy of the Dutch Republic, why wouldn't Vermeer be able to get hold of a big pearl earring? The biggest pearls were most likely to be found in the richest country, which was the Dutch Republic by a mile, especially around 1665 when it's wealth had already peaked. Maybe he owned it, maybe he borrowed it for the painting from one of his many rich customers, maybe he painted it out of imagination, maybe it was never a pearl.
    1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156.  @penname5766  @Pen Name How did parliament exactly compell William III (William of Orange is another historical bloke) to anything with his 40.000 troops occupying the country, no English soldier allowed near London? When preparing the invasion William contacted those 7 lord parliamentarians and asked them invite him, I believe that historical fact should have reached England by now. That was one of many ways he organized support, he brought a whole propaganda machine to impress as a liberator rather than conquerer. That would save blood, and money, always important to the Dutch parliament, but mostly it was about creating a stable ally in the fight against the catholic absolutists. When England went behind the Dutch back to team up with Louis XIV (and German bishopries) in 1672 they almost finished the Dutch Republic, he could not have that happen again. The idea that he had to be compelled to anything, just like he could be compelled to anything, is clearly misunderstanding what he wanted. He was not anything like a British king wanting all the power and have the nobility denying commoners rights. The Netherlands had long moved on from that and it was never much their style anyway. The English parliament or people didn't get any rights the Dutch didn't already have, many of which they had for hundreds of years with Philips II of Spain's rule just being a nasty interruption. The Plakkaat van Verlating was indeed a revolutionary document bases on legal/philosophical insights that were very fresh. No, I'm not projecting. The Dutch Republic was a multireligious, multicultural society and brought that to Manhattan, along with capitalism and the upward social mobility (the 'American' dream) the Dutch had. There were Scandinavians, Baltics, Germans, Huguenots, Italians, Turks, Persians, Sephardic jews, Azkhenazi jews, the Pilgrim Fathers and subsaharan Africans livning in the Dutch Republic. You should read some of what your countrymen visiting in those days were astonished by, and it was not just the riches (GDP per capita was about 4 times that of England) and the Turbans in the street and stuff. They were apalled by the lack of class distinction, everybody together in the public transport of that day, the horsedrawn boat, they believed it was ridiculous women travelled unaccompanied, owned businesses, could not be beaten by their husbands, even servants couldn't. Maids and carpenters owned VOC shares, butchers and bakers had several paintings in their house which for sale at a market stand. Husbands and wives showed affection in public, the existence of the clitoris was widely known and a sexual joy within marriage was no taboo at all, orphans were sent to school and literacy was extremely high, child mortality was much lower than elsewhere, there were rehabilitation programs for criminals. What we now know as the home started there. Men without noble birth and sometimes humble beginnings dominated politics. It was the birth of the ordinary man or woman as an individual citizen, worth painting with his personality and daily activity. It was certainly far more modern than Britain, than any kingdom of that time. So socially the Netherlands was far more important and it was the dominant power of the 17th century, especially economically and that drove the British to the America's and the Indies as they could not compete in the then far bigger European trade. Only after the glorious invasion and through William's rule it was the much bigger Britain to take over and become the British Empire. The Dutch had their colonial crimes too but were never imperial, too expensive and lack of people, with only a 1.5 million population and most doing far too well to take on a job as a sailor or settler. The Dutch didn't make natives anywhere speak Dutch but learned their language to exploit them better. The British did and that's why it's a common language for a large part of the world. Drawback is that they only speak one language and have no idea about how language works. Iit limits the British (historians) to books and sources in English which tend to be self serving and miss things like that feudalism and capitalism are opposites. The industrial revolution was also a big change, but relied heavily on Dutch and French inventions and the Dutch were already industrialized in the sense of windpower, the foundation of the dominance in shipbuilding, and standardization. They only lacked the precision for the ICE, and gun powder was probably not a good fuel, but the concept was 17th century Dutch, the external combustion engine (steam) was first. Microbiology underpins mondern society too and that was defenitely a Dutch discovery. They were huge in bringing math into science, the were proto-industrialists, but also in the sheer number of important inventions the Dutch punched further above their own weight. But just like many Americans believe America invented the car, the British have a habit of appropriating inventions and developments as their own once they found out about it and named it.
    1
  2157.  @penname5766  If you call him a 'Dutch king' you obviously had no grasp of the situation. And no, his name is William III of Orange because the name without the number was already taken. That he was also the third English king William was a coincidence to make it even easier to be correct. William's invasion was a propagandawar and that made it almost bloodless. He didn't want to be a glorious conquerer, he wanted a stable ally, not rebellions out of a sense of pride later. These seven (!) lord parliamentarians were part of that. The chuckle is about that propaganda making it into the 21st century despite the facts telling clearly showing it was an invasion and occupation, but the British come across as a bit desperate to still make it their own revolution. If it was not a sensitive subject, how do I know about 'Britain not being invaded since 1066'? A quick use of a search engine will show that myth is all around. Projection of the British Empire onto the Dutch is another issue. There is a difference between colonialism and imperialism. The Dutch were already capitalist traders when the British were still feudal mercantilists with a desire to rule land and people. The Dutch believed empire was too expensive, there were even ethical considerations in the beginning, and they didn't have the man power for it with all those often not too loyal foreigners from all over the world manning their ships. They were colonial in the sense of settlers, trading posts, and letting the local rulers do the oppression, they did fair trade as well as very unfair trade and could be ruthless in conflict, but also deal on equal foot with Africans, Asians and native Americans. Huge landmasses and millions of people under Dutch rule, that only happened in the late 19th, early 20th century because the local rulers were too cruel for the homeland sentiment and the people had to be civilized and prepared for self rule (still hoping to make a profit though). South-Africa came under British rule in 1795 and that made the Boers move away to be free and fight two Boer wars (I know many British only count one Boer war, the one they won). The Dutch were very much 'hands off' for the area's they didn't live themselves. They were also the only colonial power that regularly purchased land from the natives. The Dutch were extremely rich and had revolutionized warfare in the late 16th century and soldiers were for hire. It's not like they could not have taken parts of still very much divided Germany or Belgium. But they didn't share that feudal fixation on ruling land. They knew peace and trade served them best because they were the dominant traders and the idea of Mare Liberum, the free sea, is Dutch for a reason. It's completely different mindset from a very different society.
    1
  2158. 1
  2159.  @penname5766  @Pen Name "Whether he was a king or not"? I beg your pardon, I recently explained to you what he was. It's not splitting hairs, because you ignored a fundamental difference by assuming his motives as if he were a British king in your post that now seems to be removed, and now you're doing it again, talking about rude. This thread starts with someone having a chauvinistic chest swell, which is fine with me, and you continue with naming British achievements and presenting some unique make-up of the country through which it's supposed to be at the origin of about anything good. I'm also pleased the former Dutch colonies doing well particularly on the typical Dutch inheretance. I share my general observation in general terms that the British tend to attirbute foreign inventions and developments to themselves once they have embraced those and project British history on others like they were about the same, only later and of less importance of course. It doesn't take a cultural antropologist to link those to a history of being an empire, but that doesn't make it correct. That could actually be considered quite rude, as a general trait. I personally would think of different words and really don't care about rudeness that much, but to be considered rude by challenging that view with lots of arguments does not show any self reflection. If that's rude, what have you been doing in your initial reaction to me then? I don't take offense but I lack a bit of appreciation for the fact that both our points of view are equal. I was not defining Dutch colonialism in terms of better motives. There were aspects to it that were better from good motives, but that's another story. It was different in nature with some bad outcomes and some good outcomes. I point that out, but assuming it was alike could theoretically also be considered rude. You also assume that Dutch history is similarly propagandistic, and written by men of advantaged birth. The latter carries a lot of projection of lacking upward social mobilty that Britain has been known for, the first is the rude assumption that it must be alike the British. Dutch history writing has gone through some propagandistic phases, for specific national use, but those are easy to distinct. I also pointed out why history works differently in a country of that size with such international orientation, and that it's foreign historians who tend to rave about the Dutch Golden Age (1570's-1670's). That's where I got it from, Jonathan Israel, Simon Schama, some Russell Shorto, people like that. Dutch historians tend not to get enthousiastic about Dutch history. I got little positive to say about the Dutch 18th century (a country of rentiers and beggars, the two least productive people as Voltaire put it), when the pioneers of modern captilism had to face capitalism and see the money move to London. The Dutch probably got richer from the British Empire than from their own colonialism, since in the 17th century it was such an insignificant part of the merchant fleet and economy. Good and interesting things happened in the mostly empoverished, empire in decline, 19th century. But also regression, socially. The Netherlands went from a boisterous, outgoing, resiliant personality into a depressed, bitter, shoegazing and distrusting one. My point is that the 17th century was that of the Dutch, who had a revolution that was their own, were extremely modern turning every other country into a backward one, brought the Spanish Empire to it's knees and led Euope out of the Dark Ages and one important part of that was invading England and giving it's current constitutional monarchy and modernizing the economy. The Dutch created their own supreme power they would lose out to. That's fine with me, that would run out of advantage anyway and were simply too small to keep it up when others copied. But it was a pivotal point in European and world history. And then people claiming like it all came out of Britain and Britain somehow was always in the lead, that annoys me a bit because it's simply incorrect, and could be considered rude often. Also because it's through the British filter that is called the English language that North-Americans see Europe. No 1066 wasn't the last time Britain was invaded by force. The fact that the English absolutist king got a nosebleed, fled to France and the army ran or defected does not mean it wasn't by force. It was too much force to fight, especially with the popular support thanks to the propaganda tactics. So again, it proves a sensitive subject.
    1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175.  @tkbheje8876  The issue is not whith the immigrants hired by European corporations. I'm not opposed to immigration, but it has to be mutually volontary and somewhat symmetric. The problem is with immigrants that seem to see Europe as the promised land but don't have the education to succeed there and form an underclass that keeps it's own culture. Many smaller businesses are happy with illegal Africans working for illegally low wages, like 20 euro's for a long day. The civilisation is not plastic, it's where literacy science, institutional education and human rights come from, and prosperity man had never seen before. The values Europe gets criticized with are usually entirely European in origin. So if you on your computer complaining about torture, genocide, poverty and lack of education, the computer is the product of European culture just like the rest. Try hypothetically complaining about torture and genocide etc. to a pre-European leader. Nontheless, I don't believe European civilization should be exported actively. It tends to set standards too high to keep, hypocrisy is therefore a part of it. Another part of it is empathy for other cultures, that tends not to be mutual, it's probably something that grew over time and appearently only in Europe. Europeans want to be kind and be liked as a culture, they even expect it. That's also why they handed Africans independence, it's not like they lost independence wars, the pressure from the neocolonial power, the USA helped, but still. That's pretty unique for any empire in history. From a point of power as regarding all empires before, the Europeans would simply shoot everyone trying to get in illegally. So there is some softness to European civilization that is basically decadent. But anyhow, I don't believe civilization should or can successfully pushed on other cultures, demand should come from within. Europe can be self sufficient. What we see now is just mismanagement for decades, actually more the consequence of the American short term gain model we are forced in than European capitalism. Also without Russia, which is part of European civilization, Europe has enough fossil fuels to run this kind of economy, it's just not able to switch back in such a short term. There's a huge natural gas field here a bike ride away but that's closed because it causes earthquakes that damage houses without destroying them, that's the framework, that's how prosperous we are. If people are really freezing to death, those people will have to cope with a few extra cracks in their walls. It can also feed itself easily. So for the basic needs we don't need other continents. Don't forget that European had already made their harsh and cold land with the difficult climate wealthy long before any colonization of other continents and it's the explosion of literacy, knowledge, science and technology that started in the 1600's that created the prosperity the world hadn't seen before. The colonization was just a very minor contribution. Not all natural resources are in Europe, and I would like to see Africa sell it less cheap and less corrupt. But let's not forget that cobalt is useless without Western technology. It's European civilization and technology that gives it it's value. So that's an opportunity for Africa that it didn't create by itself. But I don't like consumerism, we are stuck in this economic model of polticians having to keep the corporations happy so sustainability is about selling new products that have to be replaced after 7 years too and everything has to get everywhere faster and profits must return on the short term, while the wellbeing of the people is of secondary interest. And in the globalist economy that lands on the poorest the hardest, which are not the Europeans, but that does not mean Europeans wouldn't be better off by mostly self sustaining in a slower economy too.
    1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178.  @bryanbarnes9204  Oh yes they do. They can't deliver on that promise, it will be corrupted by other interests but they truly believe in their own good intentions and that is what really counts, not the results. Europeans have made the current world and believe they can remake it. This zero sum thinking is more African, the idea that having something means you have taken it from another. Not that Europeans never stole anything but that was on the side. Europeans have internalized capitalism, they believe in the creation rather than the taking of wealth. The African thinks 'they are taking my cobalt' , the European thinks 'we gotta do something with that cobalt otherwise it's just sitting in the ground there not contributing to any wealth'. Europeans believe that if Africa gets wealthy they can sell more stuff to Africans, getting even wealthier themselves. They believe in win-win, which could happen, but often doesn't. They want Africans as consumers rather than producers only. What he is doing here is making the case for helping to make countries outside Europe healthier to prevent mass immigration. He wants to make the jungle into a garden to stop it overgrowing his own garden. That's because he's too weak a gardener, he only wants to plant, not weed and not build a wall around it. Het pleas for benevolent neocolonialism as an alternative for border security. I don't agree with him because for border security he just should stop being this weak, while to garden the jungle he has to be far, far stronger than he is to deliver on his good intentions.
    1
  2179.  @tleo842  You should get your head out of the 18th century. The Europeans have been just as much greedy cruel assholes as any empire, king, warlord in history. But they also developped the civilization, a history's first, to end slavery and voluntarily end their empires and hand over independence. Not from weakness but from benevolence. Africans in general did not fight for independence, they did not gain it, it was handed to them. They accepted it and they accepted all the money to develop, so that's that. History had taken a turn. It turned out big parts of Africa weren't ready for independence and messed up and got back to their old, pre colonial ways, except they don't know how to build wealth without enslaving eachother. So it's not very becoming to be all triumphant like Africans are not actually enjoying Europe's gentle side it has shown the past 70 years. You can act all though and pretend you are going to take something by force but you are not capable of doing it by force, you are taking something because the one you are taking it from is too gentle to stop you doing so. They are taking advantage of Europeans being soft on them. For now that is. It's not that Europe can't do anything about illegal immigration. It can simply let the invaders drown in the Med and the attempts will stop. As a hostile invasion it's the most helpless ever. The often false pretense they are helpless victims of war and colonialism is what keeps Europe gentle. If Africans don't want to be beggars but proud Africans they will make their own countries and continent better. I they want to act tough and take want they want they can't count on Europe's gentle side. You've gotta choose, either you exploit Europeans gentle side by playing the victim and beg for help, that works for now, or you can act like you actually are the tough guy who has the power to, and you'll get Europe's tough side again. How did you like that side the last time?
    1
  2180.  @bryanbarnes9204  That's my point! I'm opposed to neocolonialism, also when it comes with good intentions because Europe has a habit of not delivering on that. The motives on the side, the patronizing and the evil corporate interests will determine the outcome just as much as the good intentions. European progressives are the kind that go to Africa to help out in orphanages, but because it's all about them, Africans organize fake orphans to get money out of them, which is bad for the development of the children. Gardening the jungle is not in the interest of Europeans, it's in the interest of Western mega corporations. What's in the interest of Europeans is keeping the jungle out of the garden, but also that is not in the interest of the corporate West. But no, this is this zero sum thinking again. No, Europe didn't get massive help nor needed it from the rest of the planet. This is this wrong idea that the amount of exploitation and suffering equals wealth, it doesn't. It worked that way for the African slavers and their kingdoms but soon all the colonial powers combined the Dutch capitalism with their rather feudal colonization. I only buy slave free chocolate for example, which is actually rare. It's hardly more expensive and that's because of the checks there is no slave labour involved rather than that proper labour cost that much more. If I buy a 1 euro praline, only 1 cent is for the raw cacao, the African part. It wouldn't matter to me if it was 1.5 cent and picking cacao would be a good job for the locals. There is still 99ct value added by Europeans, shipping, processing and skillfully making it into a praline. The cacao picker couldn't afford one with a day's work pay, the European has to work 3 minutes for it. So there's this adding value itself, but all this adding value over time also leads to huge different standards of living monetarily. You can buy a lot more with a euro in Africa than in Europe, really a lot. Something similar was the case in the 80's, what I made as a paper boy was a small fortune in the communist countries of Eastern Europe, I could order caviar from an hour bringing news papers in the capitalist part of Europe. That was already the case in the 17th and 18th century. The slave labour or later colonial labout at the beginning of the chain was such a tiny part of the cost, it didn't matter for European wealth. Just like it does now. It has little to do with oppression and a lot with living standards and added value. That's why we don't see difference in wealth between European countries that have and don't have a colonial past, and we see countries that haven't been colonized doing worse than countries that have been. The Spaniards stole a lot of gold before they became capitalists too, and that actually did them more harm than good because their zero sum thinking didn't fit with what was to become reality in Europe, the capitalist economy with people getting richer and richer from trade and enterprises fuelled by science and invention. So I'm afraid the contribution of the oppressed to European wealth was tiny. Labour was so poorly paid because of the raw goods bulk traders competing with eachother, not because doubling their wages would have made coffee, sugar, tabacco or chocolate too expensive for Europeans.
    1
  2181. 1
  2182.  @bryanbarnes9204  Basically because they were at war with eachother or preparing for war with eachtother. The Dutch for example started out as proper traders not wanting to impose themselves and dragging people far away into their war, but they still needed armed presence because if they didn't take it, their enemy (Spain and Portugal) would. But then they took a plantation colony from Portugal and had to give up on their objection slavery to keep it running. You could not just send the navy to enemy ships all over the world, a trip would often last more than a year, you needed a trade network to sustain armed presence on the high waters, money wise but also to keep the war effort fed and hydrated. In the end, almost 200 years later, they did strike a fairer deal and they could easily afford it. But it was still very difficult to chnage the whole system in a slave free one. Why is there still so much chocolate produced with child slaves? Because it's difficult to change it with all those cacao farmers competing with eachother. Capitalism carries and unreasonable strong force for the lowest price within it. Because of the size of the British empire it was important to the British economy anyway, but let's say they didn't let the local sugar farmers aim for the lowest cost and lowest price and France would take over the sugar trade, than France could boycott the British and destroy the whole sugar processing and sugar products chain, and that would hurt. The French could easily dump that sugar in the ocean, because in the Caribbean harbour the price was still very low, and so was the value of the labour that went in it. So the fact that it was involved in big economic interests and essential to it does not make the labour itself comparably valuable. And wasn't India much more a driving force for the British Empire? Because it was much wealthier when they got there and there was more value added there, like with textile.
    1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185.  @bryanbarnes9204  No, that's not true. The French had abolished slavery out of their ideals of the French revolution, but had tracked back on that. Britain and the Netherlands had beaten Napoleon, but the Dutch Republic had been an empire in decline for quite a while as far it had been an empire but they were only recently surpassed by the British as Europe's and the world's biggest trader. Suriname and the Antilles were sleepy colonies with no ambition of growing. Abolishing the slave trade was about the first thing the first king of the Netherlands did, the French occupation had left it piss poor and this king was a British initiative to create a buffer monarchy. That poverty was why it took the Netherlands very long to end the remaining slavery. Indonesia had little to do with it because the Dutch didn't really rule it, they just controlled (parts of) it and the local rulers way of organizing labour was profitable enough If you want to be cynical about the motives of the British and allies in that figth for abolishment like the Dutch look at population growth and the resulting supply of labour, making it cheap and without all the fuss of slavery. But that does not change the serious ethical unease among the wealthy Europeans at hom. They were often very religious people who had been long abled to look away because slavery was something far away. So people were actively informing others about what was happening in the colonies and gaining support for abolition. That was very real, no matter whether more cynical reasons tipped the policy. This basic human decency might be unique to European culture, at least in it's global pretense, it also produced a lot of hypcrisy. But it's that same culture that let Africans become independent without a fight, that send billions of developping aid, and that doesn't shoot at African invaders. Try forcing yourself upon China or the Arabs like that, claiming a house and an allowance, invading in small boats, and they'll simply sink those. That empathy on a global scale and therefore sense of having to fair seems pretty unique to European culture and is been taken advantage off. Puttin a flag on a territory was pretty important for the British and the French. They were imperialists in nature, but there had to be business to pay for it and keep it. But let's be real, it was sugar, coffee and tobacco, and later cacao and rubber, then you look at what part of the average European's montlhly spending goes to those products, detract processing and shipping costs, and you have quite a good indication of how much the slave labour contributed to European wealth at that time. Obviously that's very little. Not because they weren't working hard enough or didn't suffer enough, but because that's how it works with capitalism, beginning of the chain and geographically seperated economies. It still does.
    1
  2186.  @bryanbarnes9204  That was not my claim, my claim is Europeans have a culture in which worrying about basic human decency extends to the whole world and comes with a kind of cultural empathy. For example an African or Middle-Eastern crosses 10 safe countries to (falsely) claim refugee status and a house and social benefits, and a christian politician comes up with the argument 'love your neighbour like yourself'. 'Neighbour' is taken as 'any human being', without any explanation needed, because that's in the culture. I don't see that in other cultures, especially not the empathy. I don't see any reflection of the immigrant communities here on how the welcoming people would look at them and why they would regret letting them in. I never hear Africans or Middle-Easterners thinking about what they would do if tens of thousands people from far away would invade by little boats. I as a European automatically try to take the perspective from the colonized or victim of neocolonialism too. I also don't see that in these comments. If you would be empathic enough to take the perspective of a European this garden/jungle metaphore really isn't that strange. It was all nice and orderly, organized and peaceful and that's changing from the outside. No one from the Africans here spared a thought for how the Europeans must feel about that. Same with the past, it's all about the African suffering and the lack of empathy makes you think that that must have been were European wealth came and still comes from. If you had the same European cultural empathy you would think of all the other, European, products, trade and industry that did make them wealthy. You would also understand why we think of Africa and the Middle East as relatively uncivilized. I'm trying to explain the European perspective here, with cutlural empathy, not defending it because I mentioned many flaws too. But even that seems to bounce off mostly on a charicature of Europeans. I do understand the different perspectives, or at least the fact there are different perspectives, because that's in my culture.
    1
  2187.  @tleo842  No, capitalism emerged from free people, literacy, trust in institutions and navigable waterways making trade more important than agriculture. You wouldn't be on the internet right now without capitalism and without European civilization chances you were just another case of infant mortality. Making other humans into slaves was what the Africans did, the Europeans bought them pre enslaved and the Africans bossed the entire supply. Europeans ended the global slavetrade against the Africans will. The Europeans and white Americans are actually the only ones capable of facing the shame and guilt. As I already explained, Europeans won't do much good for Africa even if they genuinely want to, they tend to not deliver. Europe is not institutionally evil or racist, it's institutionally hypocrite. There's the good people of Europe and there is the evil financial interests. There's the angel on the right shoulder that speaks from the heart but also pretends there is no devil on the left shoulder, while it knows there is. Socialism is a way organizing society, capitalism is a way of organizing productivity, they are not mutually exclusive. I would have liked to see Lumumba and Sankara succeed. I know who prevented that and I don't support that at all. But the world is a dangerous place and so was Africa before the Europeans arrived. I'm just saying that distorting history and zero sum thinking (including 'reparations') victim mentality and prematurely denouncing capitalism will get you nowhere. Nor is acting tough concerning migrants in Europe, they illegal or asylum seeking ones are tolerated out of pity, not respected for their strength or conquest. You can't have both, you can't have Europe to go to and fully deglobalize, you can't be proud African and begging to stay in Europe and playing the victim card.
    1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. I'm sorry but I hate these kinds of videos. Young nitwits just throwing in the word 'democracy' while they have no clue what it is, how important it is and how they just trade it off for ease and fun. -Border checks were a pain but now citizens get checked more thorougly and have their privacy invaded more day in day out than at any border check in the 70's or 80's, and in the EEC of the 90's you could already forget your passport and still hitchhike throuhg all Western Europe. But thanks to free movement too, it's now too unsafe to hitchhike and the hugely increased unsafety is an excuse for governments checking you out everyday like you were at a border crossing. - Well before the EU students could also study at a foreign university. They did, but for specific and better reasons than it just being cheaper. It also had to be the good students because they had to master a foreign language at academic level. They pay a few thousand, then have an education in English at the expense of foreign taxpayers and their education level, and then move out of that country again. - This bland international monoculture of the climate destroying flying class is not only terribly boring, it's also becoming a plague in big cities all over Europe, destroying diversity. - The free movement of labour has millions of lower educated European workers from the poor member states being exploited in rich countries with no job security and therefore shelter security, living in baracks, far away from family and friends, often being a nuisance and I don't blame them because drinking is what 'displaced' men in groups in their little free time do. It also leads to welfare exploitation and fraud, undermining the public support for it.
    1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198.  @AudieHolland  There's no proof of the eating whatsoever, but YT is full of English propaganda of that time regurgitated as proper history. But it was cruel and judging by the reactions by the Dutch at that time, it was a relapse, uncharacteristic for how was dealt with people. I think we have to distinguish between what people do in and around berserk moments like battles. If people have been trying to kill and maim you for hours while the body parts where lying around I can imagine you get a little bit less sensitive for a while after and have feelings of revenge. But there's also a baseline of civilization that was already very well developped in the Dutch Republic and even before in the lowlands, they were far ahead of England anyway and centuries of piece and prosperity had of course helped set that baseline. Those things tend not to develop in times of war, civil war and poverty. The Dutch had extensive civil rights, a bit later than the Magna Charta, but the Kortenberg charter for example was much more extensive and included the commoners, who were strongly represented in the legeslative branch anyway (judiciary and executive power were already seperated). There was a strong humanist tradition in the Low Lands and in the 1500's there was for example Dirck Coornhert, who's lesser international fame than Erasmus ist mostly down to fact that he chose to write in Dutch rather than Latin, who advocated for rational criminal law with insight in the causes of crime and punishment as a step in rehabilitation. In the 1600's in by then the Dutch Republic, this was already practiced. Besides the home for the poor, a charity in which the food was better than what the majority of Europeans got, there were rehabilitation homes in which criminals were taught to work. The Dutch wouldn't be Dutch if there wasn't an economical angle to it, dominating Europe's trade with 1.5 million people meant there usually was a shortage of labour and ship's crew's in particular. Allthough torture was still part of judicial proceedings for the very serious crimes, it was measured, both for the investigation and the punishment, in proper legal proceedings. It was a very legal society anyway and even the revolt that turned in the 80 years war was very much a legal conflict fought by legal means between the actual fighting. Basically everything about the beginning years/decades of the 80-years war oozes outrage about the disturbance of the peace and prosperity by the Spaniards. The people of the Low Lands had it going on, the Dutch Republic got obscenely rich, but also in the 1500's there was already widespread middle class wealth and catholics opposed the persecution of protestants too. Even in rage there were norms. The statue storm, in which protestants vandalized churches and monestaries, there was no plundering. It was a protest, not self enrichment, and there are records of protestants convicted by protestants for stealing in the process of vandalizing churches with an angry mob. Even the Dutch word for War has been 'oorlog' at least since the 80-jarige oorlog. We have the word 'krijg' which is a more direct translation of German 'Krieg', French 'guerre' and English 'war', but the original meaning of 'oorlog' is more like 'ordeal' or 'fate'. So that might give an idea about how the Dutch looked at what was happening to them. Not something to win, to be heroic in or gain something from, something that simply part of life, but something to endure. So I think it's fair to say that the uncontrolled bloodthirst and torture of the Spanish by the Sea Beggars was the exception and the measured and mild punishments by Maurits were more the expression of the degree of civilization of that time and place, including the rationality of not making things unnecessarily expensive in time, money and blood. As also this video shows, these sieges were patient enterprises with their own proceedings, which allowed for the horrors of battle and often the horrors of plundering Spaniards, but also for measured, rational and even fair decision making and ending. It's indeed fascinating and in the 80-years the Dutch had one foot in the Dark Ages and the other in the Enlightenment, in probably more ways than this one. I think it's what people get used to, in times of peace and prosperity their natural empathy and sympathy isn't numbed by reality.
    1
  2199. 1
  2200.  @faithlesshound5621  He chose to run and a lot of his troops defected. William chose to wage a propaganda war to avoid bloodshed, instability and the risk of a catholic theocracy returning. As basically a civil servant of the Dutch Republic, technically not a hereditary position, he was more interested in not beeing surrounded by catholic kings than in ruling England. He brought leaflets and a printing press with him and brought on a show. He had his fleet bigger than the armada on full display at the coast, he brought a regiment of blacks with him to impress as a global empire, and he made sure it looked as much like it was the English their own 'revolution'. He even invited English parliamentarians to invite him to invade and forbid all of his soldiers to name it a conquest or invasion, it needed to be a liberation. Obviously he succeeded, but the English not fighting back doesn't make it anything other than an invasion and an occupation, no English soldier was allowed in London. From the early stages of the 80-years war, the Dutch army had been developping to the most modern army and it had quite a bit of practice by 1688. Discipline, uniform equipment, standard communication, drilled shooting and reloading set ups, they had amphibious marines too and were experts in city sieges. With 40.000 troops the English were probably wise to not fight and accept the rather fair deal William offered them, freedom of thought and religion (allthough limited), parliament power, bill of rights, practically everything that had made the Dutch Republic fair so well for a century.
    1
  2201. @Horatio Nelson The invitation was William's plot, his plans to invade England were much older but he went looking for support from the inside so he invited The Seven to invite him. It was a conspiracy that involved John Locke, who was living and working in the Dutch Republic to reform the English state and legitimize it. King James got a nosebleed and fled to France instead of leading his army into battle, effectively giving up England in the face of huge invasion force. It was all part of the plan to make the English people feel like it was their revolution, or liberation at best. William forbid his troops to use the word invasion and made sure they were well behaved to win the hearts and minds of the people for a smooth transfer of power. . Besides the military expertise from the 80-years war, the Dutch had more than 100 years experience with war propaganda too. He was a showman and came very well prepared, to fight if necessary but to win over the people more than anything by making it look like an internal English thing much more than it was. And he succeeded, even until today it seems. If you march your troops through a foreign country without the consent of the ruler that's an invasion. If you take the capital city and have every English soldier removed it's an occupation. William was always in control, he just wasn't interested in the glory of bloody battles and ruling like an absolute monarch, the Dutch had freed themselves from those medieval concepts more than a 100 years before and never had been very feudal to begin with. He was playing chess on the bigger board, he wanted a stable England with the protestants in charge.
    1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205.  @faithlesshound5621  @Faithless Hound I don't know if they were quartered in London, by the time he got to London the job was already done. The Dutch had to get soldiers from anywhere anyway, but he and his troops were dressed to impress ont the way and let word go around so the blacks wore white turbans and marched together. The Dutch model wasn't that much of a model, a republic was more what they stumbled upon after declaring the Spanish king had left the throne by beeing a tyrant who did not respect their ancient and natural rights (religion) and fell back on the largely self governing structures of the Burgundy rule before Spain. And that wasn't set in stone either, there had been the prince-minded and states-minded for a while, often wrongly translated as orangist or even royalists vs republicans. But the 'states' were the governing bodies of the 7 different provinces and were a force for decentral power, while the stadtholder, appointed by the states but usually from the Orange family, was more a centralist force keeping the provinces together and a military commander. Due to the government of commoners that preceeded him, the way that ended and his political skill, William became exceptionally powerful for a stadtholder, sometimes even resembling a king. But he was still an appointed civil servant who happened to carry the title of prince. Nontheless, the balance of power with some inheretance involved had worked great for the Dutch Republic, just like the freedom of conscience (religion) and other civil rights, and of course England with protestants in charge had to become a success. So it's probably more like he worked with the power structures present in England to get to a similar balance, than that the Dutch had a model of what a republic should look like and how to turn it into a constitutional monarchy. Historians have of course been instruments of patriotism or even propaganda for centuries. It's hard to correct all of that in little over half a century of historians who try to be fair, especially for the anglophones. In general I believe British historians are too anglocentric and often stuck in old patriottic views, but in this case it's a bit more complicated because it was William's own propaganda campaign that aimed on, besides impressing, downplaying his own and any other foreign role.
    1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213.  @DanDanDoe  The Dutch already cycled more, they kept cycling in big numbers, not just a few parents protested but lots of people, including drivers, it also had to do with the street as playground for the children, and there were the squatters protesting the demolishing of old city parts for new buildings with roads for the cars. The vote in Amsterdam was extremely close, 1 vote and large parts of the city would have been demolished. Very little infrastructure was build in the 70's and 80's, Utrecht was still holding on to the new projects very much if I am not mistaken, most political parties were still very much ready to make room for the cars allthough accepting the bicycle was gonna stay. Our prime minister's party, who now flaunts the cycling, has remained a considerable force against it until at least the late nineties. What really did a lot was the limit on big box stores at the edge of the city that had been there since the 50's and was not motivated by cycling, the traffic rules like in Groningen in 1977 to discourage car driving in and around the center, changing the number and the ratio bike/car in an area, the woonerfs, also pre 70's, and the liability rules of the early 90's. That together with the broad public acceptance, also among drivers that cycling simply had to be. it's a cycling and walking culture that has generated infrastructure, not the other way around. If the Dutch had waited around for taking the bike until the current levels of cycling infrastructure, we wouldn't have gotten it. It's great and I love it, and I would like the example followed internationally, but it's the people that have to follow the example too.
    1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217.  @Alasdair-d3c  No, there was hope that catholic James II would not get a heir so the trend toward catholic absolutism would die with him as Mary would then be the next in line When his heir was born there was hope this was not his sun but smuggled in the room in a bed pan. But that hope was lost too. This posed a problem to the Dutch Republic because catholic France teaming up with England again like in 1672 posed too big a threat to the existence of the Dutch Republic and therefore the future of protestantism and religious tolerance. So the parliament (not an English invention) of the Dutch Republic decided to fund an invasion and had a huge fleet and army build. In the process stadtholder of the Dutch Republic and therefore commander of the military contacted a group of rather powerless lords parliamentarian himself through his vaste European network of informants, spies and diplomats and demanded an official invitation. The relevant letters have been found a long time ago, the primary sources are there. He did not need assistance with the invasion and conquest, he needed assistance with the popular and political sport for the future stable government of England to make it a stable ally for the Dutch Republic and protestatism in Europe. I'm not an American and you don't know your own British history because the Brits don't want to know of any history that doesn't make them look like a very special people all good in the world somehow originated with. The most important development in British political history until this day was a Dutch invasion for French reasons, after which England became much more like the Dutch Republic, with it's bill of rights, religious tolerance and Bank of England, and it thrived econmically and culturally to become the British Empire.
    1
  2218. 1
  2219.  @georgesibley7152  That's been the story for centuries because William didn't want to be seen as a foreign conquerer and this was part of a much bigger propaganda campaign around and during the invasion, that would make is reign vulnerable to sentiments. Later it, like most historiography of those days, it became a self serving history. William had already interfered in English politics in 1686, in april 1688 France and England started a naval alliance, that's when the Dutch Republic started preparing for a military intervention. An enormous fleet got build, payed for by Dutch parliament and quite a project in such a short time since the invasion was initially planned for september. Also in april, William discussed an invasion with admiral Edward Russell and said he would have to be formally invited by important people. The letter to William arrived at the end of june. It's even on the English wikipedia page of the "letter to William" if you read it to the end. Russell, sacked from the English navy, was part of William's secretary. Of course Dutch parliament, which had appointed Willem in the office of stadtholder and therefore military commander, gets ignored because the Bitish like to think parliament was their idea and spread over the continent from England. William was a prince of Orange in Southern France, a title of a principality he didn't hold, allthough the most powerful stadtholder in the history of the Dutch Republic, was not the souvereign in any way. He could not react to an invitation of his person because of family relations with the Dutch army (namer after Dutch parliament) and navy because those were not his. Dutch parliament wanted him to use his family connection to turn England from an ally of France to a Dutch ally because that was essential for the future of the Dutch Republic and religious tolerance and protestantism in general. The combined French, English and German (Cologne and Munster) attack of 1672 was still a fresh trauma in which the Dutch Republic came extremely close to being annihilated alltogether. Dutch parliament didn't support/push him to take the throne for fun and status, but because he was a very good geopolitican and strategist who was turning the table on France since he was appointed stadtholder, through his military command first and through diplomacy and an extensive European network of informants and spies later. To both William and Dutch parlement this was part of a far more serious business than just becoming king of England, that just a means to an end.
    1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. I try to remember about where I parked my bike, but I am regularly impressed by my own capacity to scan a row of thousand bikes and spot my own in an instant by saddle and handlebars or rear fender. Nudity and porn are not completely unrelated, but sexuality just is. It can be uncomfortable to some sometimes or make for difficult questions from children too young to understand, but there is no point in being in denial of the existence of sexuality. As a child you just get raised with the notion there is something that adults do you'll understand better when you grow up, not a big deal and it didn't turn me into a pervert. It all comes to fall in place with love, affection and relationships later on. "Give us each day our daily bread", I though the Americans were more christian? Yes, bread stands for food in general too, but for a reason. As a Dutchman I eat bread twice most days, breakfast and lunch, and sometimes for dinner too. We went to collect 'old paper' as primary school kids, just go door by door and put the boxes on a cart. Old paper was worth a few cents a kilo and a source of income for our football club. Glass went into a special container or was taken in for a few cents too already. That is 70's and 80's recycling. Everybody wants to be in the club at the right hours, the cool hours because it's about who is there too, so causes everybody not to want to be there too early so it gets later and later. Very impractical, but still fun allthough you sacrifice your next day.
    1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297.  @freneticness6927  You simply have no clue about history and you own ignorance. Elizabeth's personal favourite the Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley, was indeed supposed to help, but was incompetent, made a mess and sold Dutch cities to the Spaniards. It was not exactly returning the favour of blocking a huge part of the Armada by the Dutch to prevent the invasion of Britain. You don't understand what monarchy in Europe was and therefore you're own monarchy. They were supposed to be put there by god, as your theocratic practices of your king being the head to the Church of England (protestants in name only) should have reminded you of. It was not just a position of power and not necessarily a position of power. As you also might have noticed as most likely a monolingual, people in different parts of the world speak different languages. The fact that the Dutch didn't name their parliament parliament or parlement, the Netherlands had and still has the Staten and the Staten-Generaal. Staten Island is named after that. The head of state was elected by those parliaments. Sometimes the appointed stadtholder could be considered the head of state, sometimes the raadspensionaris. Sometimes no stadtholder was appointed. Before Willem III there was the first stadtholderless era for example, and there was to be another one. A republic does not require democracy just like democracy doesn't require a republic. Unless everybody can vote equally there is not really a democracy, there wasn't in Britain, the USA or the Netherlands or anywhere else before the late 1800's. The Magna Charta was very limited and soon surpassed by far more extensive civil rights in the Low Lands and freedom of religion was in the de facto constitution of the Dutch Republic that was signed in 1579. With the Bill of Rights, the English finally got similar civil rights to the Dutch. Stadtholder Willem III nor his wife was in line to the English throne, but the Staten-generaal had commissioned a fleet twice the size of the Armada and increased the Staatse leger (yes, the Dutch army was named after the parliemant too) for William to invade England, and so he did. The legitimate king got a nosebleed and ran off to France before there was the big battle, and the English army fell into chaos with lots of deserters and defectors. The Dutch reached London and had it occupied for several years without an English soldier allowed near it. English parliament had no power over him whatsoever, but he wanted to make Britain into a stable ally against the catholic enemies of the Dutch Republic. He was used to dealing with parlement as a stadtholder, he was not stuck in the Dark Ages like the English, he was a modern leader from a country so modern it was richer than Britain with only 1.5 million inhabitants. If he wanted to rule like some medieval alpha male he wouldn't have brought John Locke but just killed all the nobles that made up parliament. It was mostly Germans who stopped Napoleon. Wellington managed to make it all by himself for an ignorant British audience. The Dutch Republic never cared much for the imperialistic habits of monarchies like Britain and France, and actually turned Britain into a country, a nation state like it had been itself for over a century. But because of English aggression prior to 1688, it had to invade and conquer Britain and a few years before it also had to sail up the Thames to take out the English navy. The English only managed to burn down a village on a Dutch coastal island. After 1688, with the English economy modernized and the foundation of the Bank of England by the Dutch stadtholder, a lot of Dutch many that was laying around in heaps anyway was going to take it's ROI from English entreprises while the Dutch Republic got a bit out of the heat of international war and let the English do their dirty work. Without the medieval mindset, the feudalism, but from the Dutch capitalist angle, it was a huge win.
    1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. Ik vraag mij af of je uiteindelijk de wereld niet slechter maakt met het asielbeleid. Behalve dat je voor die 600.000 euro die elke asielzoeker ons gemiddeld kost veel meer mensen zou kunnen helpen, plaats je ook de middenklasse uit relatief arme landen in een onderklasse in de rijke landen. Het land van herkomst wordt daar niet beter van, en het hele idee van weg proberen te komen uit je land ipv het beter te maken is ook desastreus voor de ontwikkeling natuurlijk. Wat wij eigenlijk zeggen is 'geef je land maar op'. Wanneer oorlog in je eigen land betekent dat je in de EU mag komen wonen, zullen mensen minder hard proberen die oorlog te stoppen, het is de verkeerde prikkel in zoveel opzichten. Het is ook een druppel op de gloeiende plaat, wij kunnen nooit het probleem van al die mensen oplossen. Hun probleem is namelijk dat ze niet in ons voormalig paradijsje geboren zijn. Maar qua aantallen past het gewoon niet. De bevolking van Nigeria groeit de komende 20 jaar met meer mensen dan er in Nederland wonen. Congo is groter dan heel West-Europa, Nederland is de grootte van Burundi. Niet daar zoveel vluchtelingen vandaan komen maar mensen verliezen de schaal uit het oog. Meer dan 7 miljard mensen op aarde hebben het probleem dat ze niet in de EU geboren zijn, dat kunnen we nooit voor ze oplossen, hooguit voor een promille en dat gaat dan ten koste van de Europa. De vraag is of we Europa daarmee eerst zover om zeep helpen dat het een stuk minder aantrekkelijk wordt als immigratiebestemming. Bovendien is de Nederlandse overheid er voor de Nederlanders. Buitenlanders helpen doen we traditioneel dmv ontwikkelingshulp, niet door de veel duurdere opvang en naturalisatie van zgn vluchtelingen. We moeten asiel gebruiken om mensen die proberen hun eigen land te verbeteren en daarvoor politiek vervolgd worden veiligheid te bieden, ipv iedereen die een conflict of oorlog als een kans ziet om het paradijs binnen te dringen.
    1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362.  @europos4541  Well modified... more like clarified what I initially meant. I don't know to what degree the income from the new world could be classified as tax, and the influx of gold an silver wasn't good for the Spanish economy. The Netherlands included the Southern Netherlands, now Belgium, and Antwerp was the richest city of Europe at that time. Not all of the Netherlands became part of the Dutch Republic, but the Spanish Netherlands and especialy Antwerp went into decline. So they lost about half of the taxed area and population, and what remained lost significantly in taxability. Let's say one 3rd to half of more than half of the tax income remained from the remaining Spanish Netherlands. So I don't know how this tax relates to all income of the Spanish crown, I do know 'more than half of the taxes' pops up in more than one source because together with the way of taxation it was a contributing factor to the revolt that started for religious tolerance. Especially the last tax raise was a problem, because it was feudal in it's logic while the Netherlands was already mostly a merchant economy on its way to become fullfledged capitalist very soon. But the war continued, with the Dutch Republic turning out to be an economic miracle that could afford a lot of armies and sieges. The Spanish troops were often not paid and plundered cities or demanded a ransom, while the Dutch paid for a standing army, so they could be uniformized and trained between battles and sieges which was an important military revolution. From about 1602 the borders were mostly secure and the Dutch started taking the war to the East-Indies succesfully where they hurt further money streams and later to the West where they were pretty successfull privateering on Spanish ships, whit an enormous hit in 1628 called the Silverfleet, there's still a very well known song about that. They took a chunk from Brazil and from 1638 on they started capturing trading posts at the African coast, because they had just given up on their objections to slavery so it was slave forts mostly. So by 1648 they were probably about matched in money, but Spain alone had more than ten times the population while the Dutch Republic had much, much more ships. It's not like they could have any hope of getting it back, it was France's turn to have a go now.
    1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1