Thank you for this! Someone in a certain Narnia and Christianity thread did something similar when I mentioned missionary work in colonial settings.

The techniques were not as refined as they are today (And you cannot blame them entirely for that) but I personally think that our culture at that time was better, so while you don't need to rub it in, trying to remove disgusting practices is hardly a bad thing at all.

Wow. You really misunderstood me. I completely agree with your statement that "trying to remove disgusting practices is hardly a bad thing at all." And I'm trying to defend it in my diss, "Christian missionaries in British colonial fiction, 1870-1914." All the person in the N&C thread did was mention all the bad things Christians did in European and colonial settings, without mentioning any good things or even good intentions carried out in not-so-good ways. Someone had to defend missionaries!

Edit: Just a note of interest, but at the moment your post count is '666'.

I know. See my newest thread in the General Movies Discussion.

I am sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, and I didn't think you were saying anything I disagreed with, I was replying more to what you had implied someone had said elsewhere, or more what people in general said.
I apologise if my tone was harsh or anything, sometimes I can sound something I don't mean to.
(I find so few people that actually agree with me anymore on things of this sort I certainly do not want to seem annoyed at the ones who do! )

I am certainly glad you were brave enough to defend the missionaries, and I personally think that Christianity was a major driving force in especially the British/American societies and hence the reason why they were successful, and to a very large extent, good. I consider Canadian culture, and Australian/New Zealand for that matter, British up until the late 1950s, our differences were just family differences, nothing more, and you wouldn't believe how I wish it was still the same...

I'm impressed that you all know so mucht about the Netherlands during the 16th and 17th Century. I'll tell you some things too.

Dutchmen settled themselves on the area which is now New York. We called it Nieuw-Amsterdam (English: New Amsterdam). At the end of the 17th Century, Brittain conquered New Amsterdam and turned it into New York. In stead of that, we got Suriname from Brittain. So yes, New York used to be Dutch. That explains the Dutch names in New York, like Brooklyn is from the Dutch town of Breukelen, and Wallstreet is from De Wallen.

The Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (English: East India Company) was founded in 1602 and was an excellent trade companion. They trade herbs in (what is nowadays) Indonesia. We used to call it Indië (English: India), or later Nederlands-Indië (English: Dutch India) because that country became a colony of the Netherlands. In 1621, the West-Indische Compagnie (English: West India Company) was founded and trade in Africa and the New World (America). Unfortunately the Netherlands also took part in the slave trade like Brittain and France did.

The Netherlands had 4 wars with England, the First, Second, Third and Fourth English-Dutch Wars. Michiel the Ruyter, a famous Dutch seafarer won some excellent battles, but there also were battles we couldn't win from the Brits. The Third English War was in 1672. This is also why there was no good relationship between Brittain and the Netherlands at that time.

In 1672, Brittain, France, Keulen and Munster attacked the Netherlands, but we survived and won.

Willem III got the power in the Netherlands from 1672 and also became King of England. And at the end of the 18th Century, France conquered the Netherlands and Napoleon Bonaparte added us with France.

@220ChristTian: Yes, I've been to those camps. They are really impressive to walk through!

The Netherlands is the one continental European country which I have a large admiration for, and an actual like. Perhaps now the Netherlands, along with many other places (My own country for one) has gone a bit too liberal for my tastes, but in history they are, what you could term, my 'favourite' country, outside my own, which was the United Kingdom for all practical purposes, and from a few different perspectives.
The islands in Indonesia for New York swap is actually very similar to when France decided not to take Canada back but instead some islands in the Caribbean (To Canada's great advantage.)

Out of curiosity, what does 'Verenigde' translate into directly? 'Oost-Indische Compagnie' is obviously translated into 'East India Company', but 'Verenigde' seems to be extra, although I am sure it is meant to be there.

The slave trade was certainly a very sad aspect of the era, but while I have heard the claim that "The British Empire was built on the back of slaves", that itself is incorrect, slaves being used pretty much only in the West Indies.
And of course nothing did more to end the Atlantic Slave trade than the Royal Navy.

I have a Dutch flatmate...he likes cheese...and he irons shirts...but he does not do dishes. I am afraid that is as far as my knowledge of all things Dutch goes though I hear that Holland is a very nice place to cycle.

@ Gmatt: Verenigde means United. That's why we call the United States of America the Verenigde Staten van Amerika.
@ Faolchú: There are cyclingpaths next to every single road in the Netherlands, so yes it's a perfect country to cycle! You can go everywhere by cycle here.

GF: Thanks for all the info! Curious: what do you know about the Dutch in South Africa? About the Great Trek and the two Boer wars, for example? I probably know more about that aspect of Dutch colonial history than I do of them in the East Indies, or even of the Netherlands. And a lot of my info comes from missionary history and the novels of H. Rider Haggard. 20th century South African history ... the novels of Alan Paton. How much have you read of these authors' work? How does fiction compare with history?

The slave trade was certainly a very sad aspect of the era, but while I have heard the claim that "The British Empire was built on the back of slaves", that itself is incorrect, slaves being used pretty much only in the West Indies. And of course nothing did more to end the Atlantic Slave trade than the Royal Navy.

Excellent points. When I think of the British imperial slave trade, what immediately comes to mind is William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. What are your thoughts on their efforts and on the movie Amazing Grace?

Well to be honest I don't know much about the Dutch in South Africa. What I do know is that Dutch trade ships stopped at Kaap de Goede Hoop (the nowadays Cape Town) and from there sailed to Dutch India. But I actually haven't got any history about the Dutch in South Africa for so far...

The colonies of the Netherlands used to be (what is now) Indonesia, South Africa, Suriname and the Antilles. Nowadays, only the Antilles is still a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that's why we also call it the Netherlands Antilles. Suriname and South Africa and Indonesia aren't parts of the Netherlands anymore, but they still talk Dutch there in most places. In Indonesia we trade herbs, which was planted there. And like I said before, we used to have New Amsterdam (New York), but because the Brits conquered it, we got Suriname for it.

@ Gmatt: Verenigde means United. That's why we call the United States of America the Verenigde Staten van Amerika.

Thank you, that explains it well! I was wondering if it meant something similar to 'Honourable' such as in our own East India Company which was fully titled 'The Honourable East India Company.

Excellent points. When I think of the British imperial slave trade, what immediately comes to mind is William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. What are your thoughts on their efforts and on the movie Amazing Grace?

Wilberforce is a tremendous inspiration to me personally, that perhaps our Western Civilisation is not yet lost, but I won't go too much into that or I would be here all night.
It was a tremendous thing, and I enjoyed the movie, although the statement at the beginning somewhat annoyed me (About the Empire being built on the back of slaves and all) but not enough to spoil the movie.

When thinking of the slave trade, do not forget the Royal Navy who, from the banning of the trade to at least the 1890s kept up a campaign against the trade. They did more than anyone to end it. (The fellow I am attempting to write about started his career on the Slave Patrol).

GFwhat do you know about the Dutch in South Africa? About the Great Trek and the two Boer wars, for example? I probably know more about that aspect of Dutch colonial history than I do of them in the East Indies, or even of the Netherlands.

I know you were not asking me, but I find South Africa quite interesting.

You must remember that those two instances happened in the 1830s, 1880s and 1890s-1900s respectively, well after the Cape became British, so it passing out of Dutch control, (And to be fair, I haven't kept well up on, say, American history since it ceased to be British. )
It is quite interesting history though, but I never sympathise with the Boers myself too much. The emigrated because they did not want to lose their slaves, and then the wars were fought after the Boer government's refused to give the vote to certain non-Boers in their lands (And remember they were the ones who attacked first, at least in the Great Boer War.)
This is not to say I hold any grudges against them, chaps like Jan Smuts and other Boers fought quite well for the Empire through both World Wars, but that doesn't mean I feel any sympathy for their leaving Cape Colony in the '30s or anything of that sort. (In fact, years ago I picked up a novel on them and could not get past the first chapters as their point of view was somewhat skewed.)

And how does one talk about South Africa during those periods and not discuss the battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift? If Rorke's Drift wasn't one of the UK's finest hours I don't know what is.

Good question, though I guess I was thinking more along the Dutch/Boer aspect as that was what we were discussing.

But thanks for mentioning it, Rorke's Drift certainly was an astounding battle, I have the movie 'Zulu', plus a bit of actual reading on the thing, quite an amazing battle, regardless of the fact the Zulus were still generally armed with spears. 4,500 on 140 is still pretty steep odds!
Isandlwana can honestly be put down to not understanding how to fight the Zulu's (They certainly learned quickly, the later battles show that) plus the fact it was the entire Zulu army vs a small portion of the British force, but Rorke's Drift certainly made up for Isandlwana to a degree.

Zulu is an excellent film. I've only seen portions of Zulu Dawn, which supposedly covers the Battle of Isandlwana. The Zulus were fierce, brave, and disciplined warriors and I remember watching a special on History Channel regarding Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift and a historian was describing the tactics used by the Zulus when attacking, which is somewhat similar to what we call a pincer movement today. They were very organized in their attacks and efficient. From the reading I've done on the subject the Zulus did have some rifles in their possession but they were much older types than the British used (Martini-Henry rifles) in both battles. Rorke's Drift was definitely a battle in which superior technology (and a ton of guts) was the deciding factor in the outcome. And RD has the distinction of having produced the most Victoria's Cross recipients than any other engagement in British history.