Talk:Dutch Empire

Contributors familiar with the Dutch Empire?

I just started up articles for the two last major European colonial empires we didn't have articles for yet. Portuguese Empire got well started, but this one not so much.

Pinging our Dutch Wikivoyagers @Wauteurz, WiDi, ErwinFCG, JuliasTravels, Podrozniczek: @Natataek, CheeseCrisps, Bram Hartveld , LucasJV, Globe-trotter:, maybe someone of you would have knowledge and interest to expand this article? --Ypsilon (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely could add a bit to it. One question though: How broad would be too broad for this article? For example, Holland (MI) and its surrounding settlements were settled by the Dutch mostly, but have never been a part of the Dutch empire. Would it be noteworthy enough to be included here?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Places which have actually been part of the Netherlands at some point in history would be included. Our best articles of this type are British Empire (who'd have guessed?), Portuguese Empire and maybe also French Colonial Empire. And even as they are a bit different empires, the Ottoman Empire and Roman Empire articles are of such a high standard that they have been featured on the Main Page so these could give some good guidelines to follow. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I put a lot of effort on all of these; thanks for the "high standards" bit, on my own behalf. :D Actually, right now French Colonial Empire has a lot of content nicely organized, but could benefit of some formatting, listifying and mapframe tweaking, such as you guys pulled out very smartly in this article. For this, I thank you. Wikivoyage is the best. Ibaman (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Dutch settlements, but not part of the empire, could get a brief mention in the article, but they should not be the focus here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

How to treat the Boer republics

The Boer Republics.

While adding onto the article, I ran into a case I'd not want to decide on by myself. South Africa (Dutch Cape Colony specifically) was a VOC colony from 1652 to 1795, and later a colony of the Batavian Republic from 1803 to 1806, after which it became a British colony, which it had previously been between 1795 and 1803. Those two overtakes by the British though, spawned several breakaway republics further inland. These Boer republics were founded and controlled by the Boers, descendants of the Dutch settlers. Do those (and in that case, which of them) warrant being included here, since they were never controlled by the Dutch state but were independent republics instead? For those not that familiar with the Boer Republics, the Wikipedia links are here, and a list of each one of them is below, with the most notable republics in bold:

• Founded in Dutch time:
  • Graaff-Reinet (February 1795 - August 1796)
  • Swellendam (June 1795 - November 1795)
• Founded by the Voortrekkers:
  • Winburg (1836 - 1844)
  • Potchefstroom (1837 - 1844)
  • Natalia (1838 - 1843)
• Later Boer Republics:
  • Winburg-Potchefstroom (1844 - 1848)
  • Kliprivier (1847 - 1848)
  • Transvaal (1848 - 1902, internationally recognised as independent since 1852)
  • Oranje Vrystaat (1848 - 1902, internationally recognised as independent since 1854)
  • Lydenburg (1849 - 1860)
  • Zoutpansberg (1849 - 1860)
  • Utrecht Republic (1852 - 1858)
  • Stellaland (1882 - 1883)
  • Goosen (1882 - 1883)
  • United States of Stellaland (1883 - 1885), previously:
    • Stellaland (1882 - 1883)
    • Goosen (1882 - 1883)
  • Nieuwe Republiek (1884 - 1888)
  • Upingtonia (1885 - 1887)
  • Klein Vrystaat (1886 - 1891)

I personally feel like a small paragraph can be written about them in this article since it does concern the aftermath of Dutch rule. They definitely warrant their own article in the long run, possibly centred around the Great Trek.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree on all counts - they merit a mention here and they merit an itinerary article on the Great Trek. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We have consensus here, I guess. Not related to it, I would ask some help on the African section of Portuguese Empire concerning the Dutch-Portuguese war, whose history I'm less familiar with than Dutch Brazil's or the Spice Islands'. Let's take 'em all to Guide status. Ibaman (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ibaman: I'd have to read up on it as well. Pretty much the only colonies we were taught about in school were the Dutch Indies (Indonesia) and our Caribbean holdings. Whenever the subject of the WIC's slave trade came up, I figured they'd just be importing slaves from foreign ports in Africa. Evidently, that's not true and The Dutch Slave Coast and Gold Coast were a thing, even if some of them were brief. Once I am read up on Dutch colonialism to where I feel confident enough to plunge forward about the Portuguese-Dutch War, I'd be happy to lend a hand! Though granted, the achiever in me kind of wants to make this another Dutch FTT, so it might take a while.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'll keep on structuring the basics, let's keep tweaking. Ibaman (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Australia and scope

Australia has struggled for many years about having been 'discovered' by Captain Cook in 1770 even though it has been inhabited by the aboriginal people since at least 60,000 years. I feel the phrase "Many locations here were first visited and named by Dutch explorers" is similarly misleading.

Other destinations in this article as well have been visited by Dutch sailers in the past, but it is a stretch to include them in the Dutch Empire. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't have language like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could pinpoint the fact that Tasmania, whose first name is "Van Diemen's Land", was first sighted and described by Dutch mariner Abel Tasman. A suggestion. It will ruin the mapframe, but is historically accurate. Ibaman (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Much like Portuguese_Empire, many places have an undeniable connection to Dutch history. I would just say that 'Empire' infers at least some settlement and projection of power. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that Diemen was first to sight Tasmania! It had been inhabited for thousands of years before that! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Before this starts leading a life of its own, Van Diemen was not even the first Dutchman to sight Tasmania. It was Abel Tasman that was the first European to sight it, and named it in honour of Anthony van Diemen, who was merely the governor-general of the Dutch East Indies. I am not even sure if Van Diemen ever saw Van Diemen's Land through his own eyes. -- Wauteurz (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tasman was the First European, I mean, in the context of historical travel writing concerning the Age of Exploration, in which we are expanding the Empires' articles. Yes, the wording must be tweaked to extreme accuracy, let's keep on tweaking. Ibaman (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A larger criticism of Wikivoyage can be the primacy of the Western worldview throughout many articles. Names have real power and we need to guard against the idea that the 'first European' is more significant that the actual history and people who lived there. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Australia is a part of the Dutch age of exploration but it was never a colony or part of their empire. For accuracy, either the name and scope of the article is expanded or Australia is removed. Gizza ^(roam) 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The article features many strategic Portuguese possessions that were taken during the Dutch-Portuguese War though. If you'd go there, there would not be a lot of Dutch history to find, since most of the forts (because frankly the most efficient way to take control over a colony is to just occupy the forts and leave the rest more or less be) were only in Dutch hands for about eight years, like the whole of Loango-Angolakust. Dutch involvement in Australia might not be notable, but Australia is notable to the history of the VOC and the Dutch Indies, seen as how many of its ships were wrecked off the coast of Australia (its crews possibly living out their lives among the aborigines). Since the VOC and WIC were in charge of Dutch colonies, Australia by extension is relevant to the Dutch Empire.

Furthermore, technically speaking the Dutch Empire only formed with the start of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (March 1815). That is the point that its remaining colonial possessions become property of the Crown and nation. The Dutch colonies were in reality properties owned by the compagnieën (trading companies). Based on that technicality, this article should not contain the VOC and WIC Empires either, which make up the bulk of the article. I do agree that purely on technicality, Australia doesn't belong in the article though, yet it does definitely deserve a mention nonetheless for its relevance to the Dutch perspective. New Zealand, which pretty much only lends its name to the Dutch, is a different story though.

The way I look at it, I reckon there's two good options: 1) Rather than calling this article Dutch Empire, to rename it to Dutch Colonialism or something of a similar nature. Either that, or 2) We let it slide and cover Australia in a similar way to how Wikipedia covers it, which is to name the fact that it was claimed for the VOC, yet never colonized by it or the country. Personally, I am in favour of the latter.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've understood it too, Netherlands was different from other European countries inasfar the "Dutch locations outside of the Netherlands", were controlled by trading companies instead of the crown/state.

And we shouldn't censor the fact that, in the context of the Age of (implicitly European) Exploration which this series of articles is about, one of the world's biggest landmasses was first discovered (again, from an European perspective of course, to the Aboriginals Australia was not a new place to discover but their home) by Dutch and places got names like Arnhem Land and van Diemen Land. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

(1) The British also often started off that way, e.g. British East India Company. (2) Of course Aborigines had to discover the land before they started living there. I'd be OK with "[Name] was the first European to discover [name of land]," but not a contextless "[name of European] discovered [name of already-inhabited land]". The fact that an article is about the European Age of Discovery doesn't justify perpetuating figures of speech that deny the humanity of non-Europeans, which is what one does when one says without qualification that "so-and-so discovered [name of land where people were already living]". If the non-Europeans are considered "savages", rather than people, then their discoveries don't count. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

True, the Aborigines don't regard Australia Day (the day of arrival of the British in present-day Sydney and starting point of European colonization) as a day of celebration but instead as Invasion Day or Day of Mourning. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I must admit: after rereading Samuel Eliot Morison's book on Portuguese explorers, searching for info worthy of inclusion in Magellan, I went "in the zone" lyrically, which colored my choice of words. But my point is, Tasmania (and Australia) merit inclusion here, on the same rationale per which Labrador and Newfoundland merit inclusion in Portuguese Empire: historical completeness, etymology of their names, and the fact that they're great choices for historical tourism. Ibaman (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Dutch explored Australia & New Zealand and provided a few names that are in widespread use still today. However they left absolutely nothing in terms in settlements and monuments. They actually make very bad choices for historical tourism because there is absolutely nothing to see and even no influence on the human culture to be found there today. It is basically non-existant.

Go to Jakarta and you will see Dutch architecture in buildings, churches and a network of Dutch canals. Australia has zilch. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as of this very moment I was thinking about maybe mentioning Cape Maria Van Diemen and Three Kings Island at northern New Zealand that to this day carry the names Abel Tasman gave them in the 1640s, but we really need not get that encyclopaedic. Ibaman (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention places that the Dutch were the first Europeans to reach since it was after all important in the building of the empire, but certainly, we should be careful about using the word "discovered". Saying the Christopher Columbus "discovered" North America is most certainly disrespectful to Native Americans, as is saying that Captain James Cook "discovered" Australia to the Indigenous Australians, or that Marco Polo "discovered" China to the Chinese. The dog2 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"The 99 Problems"

• Reporting that, as of this moment, we have reached the limit of 99 listings that can be shown within the scope of a single article. An immediate (if not very elegant) solution would be to attribute type "see" for destinations worth visiting, and type "listing" to remote ruins and placenames. A suggestion. Ibaman (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

One solution would be instating a separate counter parameter, like in the Roman Empire article. Or perhaps some of the POIs could be merged. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The solution tried on Roman Empire was nowhere really satisfactory IMO. We should get more elegantly creative, I guess. I wish I had the coding skills. Ibaman (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

They can be colour-coded in further ways like in Presidents of the United States. Perhaps distinguishing places actually within the empire at one point in time to areas of influence and exploration (which will help resolve the Australia issue above). We could make the third colour more interesting like orange, which is associated with Dutch history and culture. Gizza ^(roam) 23:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Suriname.