This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What a load of crap! Pardon my french. The Netherlands reigned supreme from 1600-1840? I'd say it was 1598-1702 when William III died. With the war of the spanish succession it was all over and England had taken the lead. Eastern Timor has always been Potuguese, to my knowledge. The Netherlands Antilles is still a part of the kingdom so 1986 is absolutely not correct. Maybe Aruba got status aparate in 1986, i don't know. South Africa was conceded to the british in 1806. To say that Belgium and Luxemburg were ever really part of the Dutch empire is an overstatement. They were never really effectively under Dutch rule. Belgium was a part of the Spanish-Habsburg empire and Luxemburg was a posession of the Dutch King but was never under Dutch government rule. The few years after the Vienna convention that Belgium and Luxemburg were 'Dutch' don't make them part of any dutch empire. If this is the angle from which to approach empire-theory i'd say that between 1689 and 1702 England, Ireland and Scotland would have been part of the Dutch empire as well. Swaziland and Lesotho raise question marks with me. Maybe the Boer-population settled there but they were never considered to be dutch citizens. New Zealand? Never! I don't care to check but I think the New York / Albany / Kingston years don't match.
I'm missing Ceylon and Taiwan, Brazil, goldcoast/slavecoast/ivorycoast Angola and the malabar and coromandel coasts in India.
Don't quote me on this because I don't have all the info handy but this story should be removed immediately.
A concerned dutchman with a passion for colonial history.
The map is inaccurate. The Dutch never ruled all of Malaya (now West Malaysia), just Malacca. Also, what's that spot on Japan? Is it supposed to be Deshima? If so, it's on the wrong island — Nagasaki is on Kyushu Island, not Shikoku!
Also, what are those spots on the south coast of China and on the north coast of New Zealand? I can't figure out what those are supposed to be.
-- ran ( talk) 03:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
@Ran >> The fact that Malakka is coloured as a whole is no problem. The Dutch had ultimate control not just over Malakka as you state, but also a lot of other forts were built as for example in Selangor, Fort Altingburg, Fort Utrecht >> 1784 - 1824 and Tanjungpinang (Riouw) The real control stretched maybe only along the coastline, but in the end, the Dutch traded the entire Mallakka peninsula for Aceh (Sumatra) with the English. So politically, the hole peninsula was in Dutch hands for almost 200 years. That why the map IS accurate. Or maybe you want to state that the British ruled the entire Sudan or Afghanistan. Off course not, but it still is coloured as though was a fully controled area. So theres no problem here.
@Ran2 >> The spots on the southcoast of China must represent the cities of Amoy (of Xiamen), Canton (1728/1749-1803) or Hoksieu (Fuzhou), 1662-?.
@Mixcoall >> I totally agree; Belgium and Luxembourg should be removed from the map. Its nonsense. -- Islanublar 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I initially got to this page because I was in favor of merging the two sections... But on reading what you guys wrote I indeed have to agree, the articles need to be changed into one and, more importantly, accurately portray the Colonial History of the Netherlands. My father is an historian and I've always been interested in my country's colonial history, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to rewrite the article. I don't know who wrote it initially, but it isn't really an article, more like an attempt at a list of all the colonies that The United Netherlands had. I would continue complaining about the article, but I don't like ANY of it. Trade posts don't count as colonies, the Dutch had a trading post in Japan, but we never colonized it. Finally, I have never heard of the use of the term Dutch Empire, nobody inside the Netherlands considers and Empire part of our history, so I would suggest we delete those titles and replace it with a new article named Dutch Colonial History, or something along those lines. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, especially from concerned Dutchmen.
@ Wetman; the British Empire ring a bell? United Kingdomian Empire... lol
I've just removed a fragment from this section, "I love spaghetti." Does this suggest something weird about the section? (Is this a code/test?) I'd like to see some verification for the claims about Netherlandish Aborigines in Australia, claims about which look particularly suspect when ending with "I love spaghetti."
Yes the Dutch came by in the form of Abel Tasman, but they didn't even land! I hardly think New Zealand can be considered a colony... So I'm taking it out..
There is an unbelievable amount of guff in this article. 132.229.165.88 - trading factories are not imperial posessions. Most of this list belongs in the Dutch East India Company or Dutch West India Company articles. Certainly the trading posts in Thailand and Vietnam don't belong here. Gsd2000 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To the person above who disputes the usage of the term Dutch "Empire", renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled [ "The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits. Gsd2000 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've spent several hours of my Saturday afternoon trying to get this article cleaned up. The three things I have done are (1) add a section about the controversy relating to the term "Dutch Empire". Though I myself find this very uncontroversial, I see that others disagree. An anonymous user had added a large and far too subjective chunk of text to the beginning of this article which I have condensed into this section. (2) I moved all the Dutch company trading posts to their own page. It was getting very long, and cluttering up the article. (3) I have tried to start restructuring the bona fide Dutch possessions into more meaningful sections - Far East, New Netherland, South America, South Africa etc, such that the text can become more fleshed out, rather than simply being a list. Gsd2000 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoever drew that map did not know what he was doing.
- The area showed in Indonesia was never completely held by the VOC, as the map seems to claim. Their controll did not extend much beyond Java and the Moluccas.
- To my fairly certain knowledge the Netherlands never held any part of what is today Germany, the map seems to claim otherwise. Am i mistaken? did the Netherlands hold part of Ostfriesland?
- Deshima is indeed shown on the wrong island.
- There was never a permamenent Dutch settlment, not even a trading post, in Kanton. Although some traders might have been permanently present in (Portugese) Macauo.
- When did we ever colonise New Zealand?
- I have severe doubts about the extent of the Cape Colony but i cannot check right now. Some of the other African and American bits look suspicious to me but someone more familiar then me with that part of Dutch history would have to check on that. Zotlan 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I have never seen the debate that your edits suggest is such a matter of contention, and as I pointed out above, "renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled [ "The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits.". Also, try searching for "Dutch Empire" in books.google.com: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22dutch+empire%22 and see all the books that refer to this without the controversy you portray. You are quibbling over nomenclature that is pretty commonplace, and this article is not a soapbox for your views, or a staging post for an essay by you on the subject.
Boudewijn8 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
One should not use google to prove that the Dutch Empire exists. First, since today there must be some 26,001 hits on "Dutch Empire", this page being the extra one. Compare this one: "Limburg Empire", 17 hits. "Cambridge Empire" 526 hits.
Amsterdam is the ceremonial capital and the largest city of the Netherlands. The government seat is in The Hague, however. When using cities to describe the actions of the government, The Hague is always used.
I think it's ridiculous to add Belgium in an article about the Dutch empire. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was a merger of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the Southern Netherlands (present day Belgium). The Belgian population was larger than the Dutch one, half of the time the capital was in Brussels, the parliament spoke French etc etc. It was the start of a new country.
Maybe I'm being blind, but there doesn't appear to be any mention of Dutch Borneo (now Kalimantan) here. Or have I got it massively wrong? 86.133.246.224 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surverying various states and empires across global history, and I've just got to remark on the structure of this article. As it stands, it's difficult to easily find sections describing the origin, high water marks, and dissolution of the various organizations that collectively equal the Dutch Empire. Rather, overall presentation is of a geographic nature, which is awkward given the French colonial empires, Russian Empire, and others, but I think the Italian Empire might offer the most parallels for the Dutch Empire.
And rather than leave this talk page as my only edit, I'll just be bold and rearrange some stuff and see where it leads.... I'd put a short chrono-summary of events at the Colonies section stub, but I'm not familiar, eloquent, or sourceful enough. Xaxafrad 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It has a typo: Artic instead of Arctic. Not sure who created the box and I'm not sure how to edit it either. ArchonMeld 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This message is directed at User:Red4tribe who has been making some changes recently. This article is already severely lacking in sources. Use of this website [3] is not an acceptable source. (Why ? Please have a look! [4]). Who is Marco Ramerini? Where did he get his information from? Who peer reviewed it? All you need to put information on the internet is a computer and a web hosting service. However, Wikipedia has more stringent controls than that, so any unsourced additions to this article without sources will be reverted immediately by me as per WP:NOR.
The same applies to the map. Unless reputable sources can be provided for the changes that confirm that they are accurate (which I sincerely doubt - the Dutch did not ever rule half of southern Iran or the area covered by French Guiana) they are not permitted per WP:NOR.
Finally, let's be clear that whilst some trading factories may have led to the establishment of colonies, they are not the same thing as a colony: rather, they are the 1600 equivalent of an American company opening up an outlet in, say, China. The Dutch did not have colonies or an empire in Vietnam (to choose that as an example from the latest map change). Any map or text which shows otherwise is misleading, and again - unless a reputable source can be provided showing a map of the "Dutch Empire" with it coloured in, the map will be reverted.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The references for Iran and the Persian Gulf are listed underneath. This is a reliable source. Yes, many of these places were trading posts, but why should they not be listed on the map? The Dutch had French Guiana from 1652-1660 I believe. Could be a little off but it was around that time period. The site does list sources. You missed them. Also, there are seperate pages on the Dutch were he lists where he got all of his information from. This is 1000% reliable.
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NlpoAsArabia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAmerica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAsia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDOceania.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioD.html
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Not acceptable to the standards of wikipedia? That makes absolutley no sense. He has every reference, for every fact that he listed, how is that not acceptable? Explain yourself. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
That is absolutley ridiculous. It is impossible to go through and read every reference that everyone has ever made. You are pretty much saying that no reference on the internet is reliable because they may have interperated something incorrectly. This is a reliable reference. Leave it the way it is. If you are so worried about it possibly being wrong, go through and read them yourself. You have still yet to give me a good reason why you are reverting the page. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
If that is honestly how you believe wikipedia works, you have no idea how it works. Anyways this is done for now, until we get the view of others. ( Red4tribe ( talk))
Red4tribe has made numerous alterations to the long-standing Dutch Empire map on this article. Original version [5]; his new version [6]. His "source" for this is the http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ website, which I view to be an unacceptable source (Why ? Please have a look! [7]) because it has not been peer reviewed - user himself says that he "does not have time" to read all the sources. His highly dubious changes are in:
and a few more. I put it to other editors that Red4tribe needs to provide sources that specifically say that the "Dutch Empire" contained these territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is where my information has come from.
1. www.colonialvoyage.com/
2. Here is acadia or Nova Scotia, whatever you wish to call it. http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk1/Part1/Ch10.htm
3. I don't know if any of you know dutch but if you do here is a good site. http://www.voc-kenniscentrum.nl/
4. It states here on wikipedia that French Guiana was briefly dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_Guiana and here http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/French+Guiana/History
5. Talks about Dutch trading posts in Vietnam http://www.tanap.net/content/universities/main_asia.cfm
6. The dutch never owned macau, but they did own something in that area so you may have misread it. Here is something on them in China and Singapore http://countrystudies.us/singapore/4.htm
7. The rest should be listed on the colonial voyage site, the first link. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the macau this is where I got the area to shade in from. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Nederlandsekoloni%C3%ABn.PNG You seem to be ignoring the fact that Colonial Voyage does list lis where they got every single piece of information from? What is wrong with that? Why do references need to have references, references to satisfy you? These other sites, while not as detailed, why do you continue to ignore them? Becuase the person who wrote them is not well known? Maybe this is a news flash, but you don't have to be well known to have knowledge, or look in a book. My main point here is, how can you honestly expect me to buy 150 books, fly to musuems in foriegen countries, trace back newspaper articles from the 1600's, all just to put a few paragraphs and a map up on a website? I'd be willing to bet(not that I'm going to go back and look) that at some point since you joined wikipedia you have used a regular old website as a reference. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm going to make a new map. As for why I made a new one here are my reasons:
The map misses New York, it shades in south of New York, which was in their control too, but it misses New Amsterdam.
French Guiania, briefly the Dutch held the colony
South Africa, I have looked at other maps of the Dutch colony in South Africa and what was there was no where near what it was.
Nova Scotia, the dutch had a colony there in 1673 and 1674, the map misses that
The map misses many forts and trading posts that they had as well.
( Red4tribe ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Red4tribe, we need to work something out here between ourselves as this is getting ridiculous, on both sides. I propose the following compromise:
1. Until we get this resolved, remove the map altogether.
2. In the same way that there are British Empire and French Empire (textual accounts of the history of the empire, which does not attempt to exhaustively list every single territory held) and Evolution of the British Empire and Evolution of the French Empire (chronological lists which do), I propose we do the same for the Dutch. Much of what you are doing would belong at Evolution of the Dutch Empire, whilst I am in the middle of preparing an account of the Dutch Empire more akin with the other empire articles.
3. Distinguish "trading factories" (of which the Dutch had many) and "colonies", and do not show at all territories only fleetingly held or captured during war. To suggest that Nova Scotia was ever a "Dutch colony" is misleading in the extreme. Perhaps trading factories could be displayed with a marker such as a square, circle or a triangle.
4. For every addition to the map, provide a reputable source. I can help you with that, I do have a large collection of books at home. However, you really cannot use those personally published websites as references, even if they list references. You cannot use a map uploaded to the Dutch Wikipedia as a reference. which you admitted that you did above. Finally, you cannot say your reason for inclusion is that "a map I saw had such and such". There are stringent rules about this at WP:V.
Whilst I hope that we can work this out amicably, even if we have gotten off to a very bad start, I am not prepared to have a misleading map on the page that you have drawn based on your own original research or self-published, personal websites. I hope Ogre's contribution also makes you see that this is not just "me", it is how Wikipedia works.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the new map I made? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG ( Red4tribe ( talk))
They are not colonies. The square=trading post or factory. If you have not noticed the site has every reference listed where they got their information from. ( Red4tribe ( talk))
well, then how can I go back and find out if they read everything correctly without having to buy 200 books? ( Red4tribe ( talk))
As far as I can tell the only support for Acadia (Nova Scotia) being part of the Dutch Empire is this from the bluepete site.
...a Dutch force under Captain Juriaen Aernouts [captured], the fort at Penobscot [...]; the Dutch raider then continued up the coast and ... put an end to the French operations at Jemseg which was under the command of Joibert. Aernouts declared all that he had conquered to be New Holland, and, promptly sailed away with his French prisoners. [...] When Captain Aernouts sailed away from Acadia he left no Dutchman behind. [...] In 1676, Castin reoccupied Pentagoet.
So a raiding captain arrives, conquers a fort and sails away leaving nobody behind. That certainly does not make Nova Scotia a part of the Dutch Empire. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1674 during the 3rd-Anglo-Dutch war the dutch very briefly established a colony on Acadia. At the end of the war it was taken away in the treaty. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
look at the bottom of this page. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NLpoAmNord.html
It was in New Brunswick. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Here bottom right side
http://books.google.com/books?id=TNWKZBRZEwAC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=dutch+acadia&source=web&ots=a_XAaL79VQ&sig=tfAeUav1XabhbGHfmBDNVUjbGUw&hl=en ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
That is true, however, the Spanish never occupied ,lets say Quebec. the Dutch did occupy Acadia. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Then I believe those forts should be shaded in on the map. The map is what was held by the Dutch at various times in history,and no matter how brief, it was at one time held by the Dutch. Of course they did not own all of Acadia or really have control of much outside a few forts, you are correct in saying that. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
On the Dutch wikipedia they have a whole article on it. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_Acadi%C3%AB ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
That is an idea. Maybe we should label different colors for core possessions, and another for trading posts, and another for major possessions(Indonesia, Suriname, etc. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
In a similar vein, San Juan in Puerto Rico was besieged by the Dutch West India Company for five weeks in 1625 (A Brief History of the Caribbean: From the Arawak and the Carib to the Present (Paperback), by Jan Rogozinski ( [11], p63) yet it is coloured on the proposed map. To suggest that it was a Dutch colony because of this is preposterous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This states that French guiana was captured by the Dutch.
If the territory is occupied by the Dutch, that would make it part of the dutch empire. As the book is about the British French and Dutch empires. I am going to continue to look but I believe this is enough evidence to shade it in on the map as well as acadia. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219071/French-Guiana
This says that the dutch occupied Cayenne from 1664-1676.
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
In the map Image:DutchEmpire7.png:
Dutch trading posts in China http://books.google.com/books?id=PF8O7SBnd4sC&pg=PA20&dq=dutch+trading+posts+asia&ei=aWgTSLeWFo-AswOHk_meCA&sig=TZKVeaugJ5rd7F1qblcVYXTzy_Y
I am withdrawing my claim that the southern coast of Iran was Dutch. However, on the new map I made, there are trading posts shown as squares which I think would be a good solution. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=B2iGAAAACAAJ&dq=dutch+qeshm&ei=7HsTSIHCFoPMsQOnnOSQCA
http://books.google.com/books?id=ivEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211&dq=Fort+Mosselstein&ei=Q3wTSKK1CoTitgOVosGYCA (in dutch) ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=HQ5KbXYhEB8C&pg=PA95&dq=dutch+trading+posts+persia&ei=xXwTSKrkHZnstAOh_PidCA&sig=uhdW31zuYqH7vA7YwtWV4ZjjSs0 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
About a battle on an island off the coast of Iran http://books.google.com/books?id=5U0yECMV--wC&pg=PA155&dq=Het+Nederlands-Iraanse+Conflict+van+1645&ei=CYcTSLuGO43itAOG-qygCA&sig=4lBSFDq8Vw5gXGu5WFIM5fRjUUs ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
This relates it to the empire http://books.google.com/books?id=dmDYLxcPDPoC&pg=PA21&dq=dutch+empire+persia&ei=6n0TSJnZL4HksQOwndCdCA&sig=7c1kL545Ck46ROiuQA_zdVZRMXk ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
My point there is that it says "Dutch Empire" and "Persia". I'm not talking about Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red4tribe ( talk • contribs)
Talks about the effect of the dutch trading post had on smoking http://books.google.com/books?id=mM5bYb_uVcwC&pg=PA78&dq=dutch+trading+posts+thailand&ei=dGkTSLnbE5TQtgPOlcyPCA&sig=TpuMOtS0gjat7Q6-RShA_3gKYtg
Trade of the Dutch at Siam
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qqw1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA197&dq=Siam+And+The+West+dutch&ei=MXsTSKeyC6istAOnjuSPCA
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Dutch merchants may have been there to Burma but there were never a military or administrative presence of Dutch in Burma. No historical or documented Dutch significance in the Burmese history have been observed. It's a strange map. -- Kyaw 2003 ( talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There were dutch trading posts in Burma. That is what I have shaded. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Dutch trading post in Burma http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA45,M1
More http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
I dug up an old book of mine. Goslinga "The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580 - 1680"
It talks about the Dutch in Trujillo in 1633.
It also says the Dutch were in control of the following from 1664-1676 in French Guinia
Post aan de Aprowaco, Post aan de Aprouak
Post aan de Wacogenive river
Mecoria Island
Cayenne
Post aan de Wiapoco
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Talks about the Dutch stations and control on the coast of Angola http://books.google.com/books?id=dzI8C0Vka7IC&pg=PA57&dq=dutch+in+angola&ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&sig=Yw00sBtRUjJZrKOcEVMd2l9n_ys
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlEbAAAAIAAJ&q=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&dq=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&ei=V4oTSIzTHI78sgOttoyhCA&pgis=1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Lists some trading posts in Vietnam http://www.en.nationaalarchief.nl/webviews/summary.webview?eadid=NL-HaNA_4.VELH&searchText=vietnam%20handelpost ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
okay first off the dutch didn't own land in Vietnam. Second the land was not part of Vietnam back then, it was part of Cambodia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vietnam_Expand1.gif Third, just because the Dutch live there doesn't mean they own there. Many Vietnmease live in Southern Cambodia in villages and seaports but they didn't own and wasn't part of Vietnam. Well not at least untill they officially annex it. 69.111.72.208 ( talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief description of the Dutch trading post in Pakistan. Look under the first result. http://books.google.com/books?ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&q=pakistan+dutch+trading+post+sindh ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Colonies Lost: God, Hunger, and Conflict in Anosy (Madagascar) to 1674 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Since most of the territories under dispute here seem to have been places which were briefly occupied by the Dutch but, for one reason or another, never actually got integrated into the Dutch Empire proper, I'd like to suggest a compromise solution that would probably resolve both concerns: a different colour for territories of this type, so that they can still be marked on the map but not in a way that makes them look like they were ever integrally part of the empire. Bearcat ( talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be an excellent compromise. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
3 is clearly the correct.
I'm unsure on this suggestion of shading areas temporarily occupied by the Dutch though...For that on the British empire map you'd have to shade in parts of Germany, France and Spain which Britain occupied for short periods during various wars. Though the Dutch areas here aren't in Europe the same standard should apply.--
Him and a
dog 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What a load of crap! Pardon my french. The Netherlands reigned supreme from 1600-1840? I'd say it was 1598-1702 when William III died. With the war of the spanish succession it was all over and England had taken the lead. Eastern Timor has always been Potuguese, to my knowledge. The Netherlands Antilles is still a part of the kingdom so 1986 is absolutely not correct. Maybe Aruba got status aparate in 1986, i don't know. South Africa was conceded to the british in 1806. To say that Belgium and Luxemburg were ever really part of the Dutch empire is an overstatement. They were never really effectively under Dutch rule. Belgium was a part of the Spanish-Habsburg empire and Luxemburg was a posession of the Dutch King but was never under Dutch government rule. The few years after the Vienna convention that Belgium and Luxemburg were 'Dutch' don't make them part of any dutch empire. If this is the angle from which to approach empire-theory i'd say that between 1689 and 1702 England, Ireland and Scotland would have been part of the Dutch empire as well. Swaziland and Lesotho raise question marks with me. Maybe the Boer-population settled there but they were never considered to be dutch citizens. New Zealand? Never! I don't care to check but I think the New York / Albany / Kingston years don't match.
I'm missing Ceylon and Taiwan, Brazil, goldcoast/slavecoast/ivorycoast Angola and the malabar and coromandel coasts in India.
Don't quote me on this because I don't have all the info handy but this story should be removed immediately.
A concerned dutchman with a passion for colonial history.
The map is inaccurate. The Dutch never ruled all of Malaya (now West Malaysia), just Malacca. Also, what's that spot on Japan? Is it supposed to be Deshima? If so, it's on the wrong island — Nagasaki is on Kyushu Island, not Shikoku!
Also, what are those spots on the south coast of China and on the north coast of New Zealand? I can't figure out what those are supposed to be.
-- ran ( talk) 03:01, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
@Ran >> The fact that Malakka is coloured as a whole is no problem. The Dutch had ultimate control not just over Malakka as you state, but also a lot of other forts were built as for example in Selangor, Fort Altingburg, Fort Utrecht >> 1784 - 1824 and Tanjungpinang (Riouw) The real control stretched maybe only along the coastline, but in the end, the Dutch traded the entire Mallakka peninsula for Aceh (Sumatra) with the English. So politically, the hole peninsula was in Dutch hands for almost 200 years. That why the map IS accurate. Or maybe you want to state that the British ruled the entire Sudan or Afghanistan. Off course not, but it still is coloured as though was a fully controled area. So theres no problem here.
@Ran2 >> The spots on the southcoast of China must represent the cities of Amoy (of Xiamen), Canton (1728/1749-1803) or Hoksieu (Fuzhou), 1662-?.
@Mixcoall >> I totally agree; Belgium and Luxembourg should be removed from the map. Its nonsense. -- Islanublar 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I initially got to this page because I was in favor of merging the two sections... But on reading what you guys wrote I indeed have to agree, the articles need to be changed into one and, more importantly, accurately portray the Colonial History of the Netherlands. My father is an historian and I've always been interested in my country's colonial history, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to rewrite the article. I don't know who wrote it initially, but it isn't really an article, more like an attempt at a list of all the colonies that The United Netherlands had. I would continue complaining about the article, but I don't like ANY of it. Trade posts don't count as colonies, the Dutch had a trading post in Japan, but we never colonized it. Finally, I have never heard of the use of the term Dutch Empire, nobody inside the Netherlands considers and Empire part of our history, so I would suggest we delete those titles and replace it with a new article named Dutch Colonial History, or something along those lines. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, especially from concerned Dutchmen.
@ Wetman; the British Empire ring a bell? United Kingdomian Empire... lol
I've just removed a fragment from this section, "I love spaghetti." Does this suggest something weird about the section? (Is this a code/test?) I'd like to see some verification for the claims about Netherlandish Aborigines in Australia, claims about which look particularly suspect when ending with "I love spaghetti."
Yes the Dutch came by in the form of Abel Tasman, but they didn't even land! I hardly think New Zealand can be considered a colony... So I'm taking it out..
There is an unbelievable amount of guff in this article. 132.229.165.88 - trading factories are not imperial posessions. Most of this list belongs in the Dutch East India Company or Dutch West India Company articles. Certainly the trading posts in Thailand and Vietnam don't belong here. Gsd2000 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To the person above who disputes the usage of the term Dutch "Empire", renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled [ "The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits. Gsd2000 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've spent several hours of my Saturday afternoon trying to get this article cleaned up. The three things I have done are (1) add a section about the controversy relating to the term "Dutch Empire". Though I myself find this very uncontroversial, I see that others disagree. An anonymous user had added a large and far too subjective chunk of text to the beginning of this article which I have condensed into this section. (2) I moved all the Dutch company trading posts to their own page. It was getting very long, and cluttering up the article. (3) I have tried to start restructuring the bona fide Dutch possessions into more meaningful sections - Far East, New Netherland, South America, South Africa etc, such that the text can become more fleshed out, rather than simply being a list. Gsd2000 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoever drew that map did not know what he was doing.
- The area showed in Indonesia was never completely held by the VOC, as the map seems to claim. Their controll did not extend much beyond Java and the Moluccas.
- To my fairly certain knowledge the Netherlands never held any part of what is today Germany, the map seems to claim otherwise. Am i mistaken? did the Netherlands hold part of Ostfriesland?
- Deshima is indeed shown on the wrong island.
- There was never a permamenent Dutch settlment, not even a trading post, in Kanton. Although some traders might have been permanently present in (Portugese) Macauo.
- When did we ever colonise New Zealand?
- I have severe doubts about the extent of the Cape Colony but i cannot check right now. Some of the other African and American bits look suspicious to me but someone more familiar then me with that part of Dutch history would have to check on that. Zotlan 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I have never seen the debate that your edits suggest is such a matter of contention, and as I pointed out above, "renowned historian Charles R. Boxer wrote a book entitled [ "The Dutch Seaborne Empire"]. Searching for the term "Dutch Empire" in Google returns 26,000 hits.". Also, try searching for "Dutch Empire" in books.google.com: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22dutch+empire%22 and see all the books that refer to this without the controversy you portray. You are quibbling over nomenclature that is pretty commonplace, and this article is not a soapbox for your views, or a staging post for an essay by you on the subject.
Boudewijn8 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
One should not use google to prove that the Dutch Empire exists. First, since today there must be some 26,001 hits on "Dutch Empire", this page being the extra one. Compare this one: "Limburg Empire", 17 hits. "Cambridge Empire" 526 hits.
Amsterdam is the ceremonial capital and the largest city of the Netherlands. The government seat is in The Hague, however. When using cities to describe the actions of the government, The Hague is always used.
I think it's ridiculous to add Belgium in an article about the Dutch empire. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was a merger of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the Southern Netherlands (present day Belgium). The Belgian population was larger than the Dutch one, half of the time the capital was in Brussels, the parliament spoke French etc etc. It was the start of a new country.
Maybe I'm being blind, but there doesn't appear to be any mention of Dutch Borneo (now Kalimantan) here. Or have I got it massively wrong? 86.133.246.224 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surverying various states and empires across global history, and I've just got to remark on the structure of this article. As it stands, it's difficult to easily find sections describing the origin, high water marks, and dissolution of the various organizations that collectively equal the Dutch Empire. Rather, overall presentation is of a geographic nature, which is awkward given the French colonial empires, Russian Empire, and others, but I think the Italian Empire might offer the most parallels for the Dutch Empire.
And rather than leave this talk page as my only edit, I'll just be bold and rearrange some stuff and see where it leads.... I'd put a short chrono-summary of events at the Colonies section stub, but I'm not familiar, eloquent, or sourceful enough. Xaxafrad 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It has a typo: Artic instead of Arctic. Not sure who created the box and I'm not sure how to edit it either. ArchonMeld 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This message is directed at User:Red4tribe who has been making some changes recently. This article is already severely lacking in sources. Use of this website [3] is not an acceptable source. (Why ? Please have a look! [4]). Who is Marco Ramerini? Where did he get his information from? Who peer reviewed it? All you need to put information on the internet is a computer and a web hosting service. However, Wikipedia has more stringent controls than that, so any unsourced additions to this article without sources will be reverted immediately by me as per WP:NOR.
The same applies to the map. Unless reputable sources can be provided for the changes that confirm that they are accurate (which I sincerely doubt - the Dutch did not ever rule half of southern Iran or the area covered by French Guiana) they are not permitted per WP:NOR.
Finally, let's be clear that whilst some trading factories may have led to the establishment of colonies, they are not the same thing as a colony: rather, they are the 1600 equivalent of an American company opening up an outlet in, say, China. The Dutch did not have colonies or an empire in Vietnam (to choose that as an example from the latest map change). Any map or text which shows otherwise is misleading, and again - unless a reputable source can be provided showing a map of the "Dutch Empire" with it coloured in, the map will be reverted.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The references for Iran and the Persian Gulf are listed underneath. This is a reliable source. Yes, many of these places were trading posts, but why should they not be listed on the map? The Dutch had French Guiana from 1652-1660 I believe. Could be a little off but it was around that time period. The site does list sources. You missed them. Also, there are seperate pages on the Dutch were he lists where he got all of his information from. This is 1000% reliable.
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NlpoAsArabia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAmerica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAsia.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDOceania.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioD.html
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
Not acceptable to the standards of wikipedia? That makes absolutley no sense. He has every reference, for every fact that he listed, how is that not acceptable? Explain yourself. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
That is absolutley ridiculous. It is impossible to go through and read every reference that everyone has ever made. You are pretty much saying that no reference on the internet is reliable because they may have interperated something incorrectly. This is a reliable reference. Leave it the way it is. If you are so worried about it possibly being wrong, go through and read them yourself. You have still yet to give me a good reason why you are reverting the page. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
If that is honestly how you believe wikipedia works, you have no idea how it works. Anyways this is done for now, until we get the view of others. ( Red4tribe ( talk))
Red4tribe has made numerous alterations to the long-standing Dutch Empire map on this article. Original version [5]; his new version [6]. His "source" for this is the http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ website, which I view to be an unacceptable source (Why ? Please have a look! [7]) because it has not been peer reviewed - user himself says that he "does not have time" to read all the sources. His highly dubious changes are in:
and a few more. I put it to other editors that Red4tribe needs to provide sources that specifically say that the "Dutch Empire" contained these territories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is where my information has come from.
1. www.colonialvoyage.com/
2. Here is acadia or Nova Scotia, whatever you wish to call it. http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk1/Part1/Ch10.htm
3. I don't know if any of you know dutch but if you do here is a good site. http://www.voc-kenniscentrum.nl/
4. It states here on wikipedia that French Guiana was briefly dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_Guiana and here http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/French+Guiana/History
5. Talks about Dutch trading posts in Vietnam http://www.tanap.net/content/universities/main_asia.cfm
6. The dutch never owned macau, but they did own something in that area so you may have misread it. Here is something on them in China and Singapore http://countrystudies.us/singapore/4.htm
7. The rest should be listed on the colonial voyage site, the first link. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the macau this is where I got the area to shade in from. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Nederlandsekoloni%C3%ABn.PNG You seem to be ignoring the fact that Colonial Voyage does list lis where they got every single piece of information from? What is wrong with that? Why do references need to have references, references to satisfy you? These other sites, while not as detailed, why do you continue to ignore them? Becuase the person who wrote them is not well known? Maybe this is a news flash, but you don't have to be well known to have knowledge, or look in a book. My main point here is, how can you honestly expect me to buy 150 books, fly to musuems in foriegen countries, trace back newspaper articles from the 1600's, all just to put a few paragraphs and a map up on a website? I'd be willing to bet(not that I'm going to go back and look) that at some point since you joined wikipedia you have used a regular old website as a reference. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm going to make a new map. As for why I made a new one here are my reasons:
The map misses New York, it shades in south of New York, which was in their control too, but it misses New Amsterdam.
French Guiania, briefly the Dutch held the colony
South Africa, I have looked at other maps of the Dutch colony in South Africa and what was there was no where near what it was.
Nova Scotia, the dutch had a colony there in 1673 and 1674, the map misses that
The map misses many forts and trading posts that they had as well.
( Red4tribe ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Red4tribe, we need to work something out here between ourselves as this is getting ridiculous, on both sides. I propose the following compromise:
1. Until we get this resolved, remove the map altogether.
2. In the same way that there are British Empire and French Empire (textual accounts of the history of the empire, which does not attempt to exhaustively list every single territory held) and Evolution of the British Empire and Evolution of the French Empire (chronological lists which do), I propose we do the same for the Dutch. Much of what you are doing would belong at Evolution of the Dutch Empire, whilst I am in the middle of preparing an account of the Dutch Empire more akin with the other empire articles.
3. Distinguish "trading factories" (of which the Dutch had many) and "colonies", and do not show at all territories only fleetingly held or captured during war. To suggest that Nova Scotia was ever a "Dutch colony" is misleading in the extreme. Perhaps trading factories could be displayed with a marker such as a square, circle or a triangle.
4. For every addition to the map, provide a reputable source. I can help you with that, I do have a large collection of books at home. However, you really cannot use those personally published websites as references, even if they list references. You cannot use a map uploaded to the Dutch Wikipedia as a reference. which you admitted that you did above. Finally, you cannot say your reason for inclusion is that "a map I saw had such and such". There are stringent rules about this at WP:V.
Whilst I hope that we can work this out amicably, even if we have gotten off to a very bad start, I am not prepared to have a misleading map on the page that you have drawn based on your own original research or self-published, personal websites. I hope Ogre's contribution also makes you see that this is not just "me", it is how Wikipedia works.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you look at the new map I made? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG ( Red4tribe ( talk))
They are not colonies. The square=trading post or factory. If you have not noticed the site has every reference listed where they got their information from. ( Red4tribe ( talk))
well, then how can I go back and find out if they read everything correctly without having to buy 200 books? ( Red4tribe ( talk))
As far as I can tell the only support for Acadia (Nova Scotia) being part of the Dutch Empire is this from the bluepete site.
...a Dutch force under Captain Juriaen Aernouts [captured], the fort at Penobscot [...]; the Dutch raider then continued up the coast and ... put an end to the French operations at Jemseg which was under the command of Joibert. Aernouts declared all that he had conquered to be New Holland, and, promptly sailed away with his French prisoners. [...] When Captain Aernouts sailed away from Acadia he left no Dutchman behind. [...] In 1676, Castin reoccupied Pentagoet.
So a raiding captain arrives, conquers a fort and sails away leaving nobody behind. That certainly does not make Nova Scotia a part of the Dutch Empire. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In 1674 during the 3rd-Anglo-Dutch war the dutch very briefly established a colony on Acadia. At the end of the war it was taken away in the treaty. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
look at the bottom of this page. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/NLpoAmNord.html
It was in New Brunswick. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Here bottom right side
http://books.google.com/books?id=TNWKZBRZEwAC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=dutch+acadia&source=web&ots=a_XAaL79VQ&sig=tfAeUav1XabhbGHfmBDNVUjbGUw&hl=en ( Red4tribe ( talk) 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
That is true, however, the Spanish never occupied ,lets say Quebec. the Dutch did occupy Acadia. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Then I believe those forts should be shaded in on the map. The map is what was held by the Dutch at various times in history,and no matter how brief, it was at one time held by the Dutch. Of course they did not own all of Acadia or really have control of much outside a few forts, you are correct in saying that. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
On the Dutch wikipedia they have a whole article on it. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlands_Acadi%C3%AB ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
That is an idea. Maybe we should label different colors for core possessions, and another for trading posts, and another for major possessions(Indonesia, Suriname, etc. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
In a similar vein, San Juan in Puerto Rico was besieged by the Dutch West India Company for five weeks in 1625 (A Brief History of the Caribbean: From the Arawak and the Carib to the Present (Paperback), by Jan Rogozinski ( [11], p63) yet it is coloured on the proposed map. To suggest that it was a Dutch colony because of this is preposterous. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This states that French guiana was captured by the Dutch.
If the territory is occupied by the Dutch, that would make it part of the dutch empire. As the book is about the British French and Dutch empires. I am going to continue to look but I believe this is enough evidence to shade it in on the map as well as acadia. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219071/French-Guiana
This says that the dutch occupied Cayenne from 1664-1676.
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
In the map Image:DutchEmpire7.png:
Dutch trading posts in China http://books.google.com/books?id=PF8O7SBnd4sC&pg=PA20&dq=dutch+trading+posts+asia&ei=aWgTSLeWFo-AswOHk_meCA&sig=TZKVeaugJ5rd7F1qblcVYXTzy_Y
I am withdrawing my claim that the southern coast of Iran was Dutch. However, on the new map I made, there are trading posts shown as squares which I think would be a good solution. ( Red4tribe ( talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=B2iGAAAACAAJ&dq=dutch+qeshm&ei=7HsTSIHCFoPMsQOnnOSQCA
http://books.google.com/books?id=ivEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211&dq=Fort+Mosselstein&ei=Q3wTSKK1CoTitgOVosGYCA (in dutch) ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=HQ5KbXYhEB8C&pg=PA95&dq=dutch+trading+posts+persia&ei=xXwTSKrkHZnstAOh_PidCA&sig=uhdW31zuYqH7vA7YwtWV4ZjjSs0 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
About a battle on an island off the coast of Iran http://books.google.com/books?id=5U0yECMV--wC&pg=PA155&dq=Het+Nederlands-Iraanse+Conflict+van+1645&ei=CYcTSLuGO43itAOG-qygCA&sig=4lBSFDq8Vw5gXGu5WFIM5fRjUUs ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
This relates it to the empire http://books.google.com/books?id=dmDYLxcPDPoC&pg=PA21&dq=dutch+empire+persia&ei=6n0TSJnZL4HksQOwndCdCA&sig=7c1kL545Ck46ROiuQA_zdVZRMXk ( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
My point there is that it says "Dutch Empire" and "Persia". I'm not talking about Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red4tribe ( talk • contribs)
Talks about the effect of the dutch trading post had on smoking http://books.google.com/books?id=mM5bYb_uVcwC&pg=PA78&dq=dutch+trading+posts+thailand&ei=dGkTSLnbE5TQtgPOlcyPCA&sig=TpuMOtS0gjat7Q6-RShA_3gKYtg
Trade of the Dutch at Siam
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qqw1AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA197&dq=Siam+And+The+West+dutch&ei=MXsTSKeyC6istAOnjuSPCA
(
Red4tribe (
talk) 18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Dutch merchants may have been there to Burma but there were never a military or administrative presence of Dutch in Burma. No historical or documented Dutch significance in the Burmese history have been observed. It's a strange map. -- Kyaw 2003 ( talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There were dutch trading posts in Burma. That is what I have shaded. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Dutch trading post in Burma http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA45,M1
More http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
I dug up an old book of mine. Goslinga "The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580 - 1680"
It talks about the Dutch in Trujillo in 1633.
It also says the Dutch were in control of the following from 1664-1676 in French Guinia
Post aan de Aprowaco, Post aan de Aprouak
Post aan de Wacogenive river
Mecoria Island
Cayenne
Post aan de Wiapoco
( Red4tribe ( talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Talks about the Dutch stations and control on the coast of Angola http://books.google.com/books?id=dzI8C0Vka7IC&pg=PA57&dq=dutch+in+angola&ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&sig=Yw00sBtRUjJZrKOcEVMd2l9n_ys
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlEbAAAAIAAJ&q=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&dq=Salvador+de+Sa+and+the+struggle+for+Brazil+and+Angola+1602-1686+dutch&ei=V4oTSIzTHI78sgOttoyhCA&pgis=1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Lists some trading posts in Vietnam http://www.en.nationaalarchief.nl/webviews/summary.webview?eadid=NL-HaNA_4.VELH&searchText=vietnam%20handelpost ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
okay first off the dutch didn't own land in Vietnam. Second the land was not part of Vietnam back then, it was part of Cambodia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vietnam_Expand1.gif Third, just because the Dutch live there doesn't mean they own there. Many Vietnmease live in Southern Cambodia in villages and seaports but they didn't own and wasn't part of Vietnam. Well not at least untill they officially annex it. 69.111.72.208 ( talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief description of the Dutch trading post in Pakistan. Look under the first result. http://books.google.com/books?ei=9okTSPKFJJ6OtgPn0JWbCA&q=pakistan+dutch+trading+post+sindh ( Red4tribe ( talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://books.google.com/books?id=GAXkISRinXkC&pg=PA45&dq=dutch+burmah+trading+post&ei=QnoTSMOtFZLAsQOxgqycCA&sig=mzY1nZGB9S36mj2bYn3GFw8c6U8#PPA50,M1 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Colonies Lost: God, Hunger, and Conflict in Anosy (Madagascar) to 1674 ( Red4tribe ( talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Since most of the territories under dispute here seem to have been places which were briefly occupied by the Dutch but, for one reason or another, never actually got integrated into the Dutch Empire proper, I'd like to suggest a compromise solution that would probably resolve both concerns: a different colour for territories of this type, so that they can still be marked on the map but not in a way that makes them look like they were ever integrally part of the empire. Bearcat ( talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be an excellent compromise. (
Red4tribe (
talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
3 is clearly the correct.
I'm unsure on this suggestion of shading areas temporarily occupied by the Dutch though...For that on the British empire map you'd have to shade in parts of Germany, France and Spain which Britain occupied for short periods during various wars. Though the Dutch areas here aren't in Europe the same standard should apply.--
Him and a
dog 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)