Talk:New Sweden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
New Sweden is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
An event in this article is a March 29 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
is it true that sweden was the second country from where settlers went to the "new world"? links? doubt it... Foant 17:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Sweden was right behind the English and Dutch but they were first I'm pretty sure in the Colonies. Of course Spain beat them all. I'm not sure about Portugal in terms of founding a settlement but they were second in charting out the area of New England. [1] 12.220.47.145 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Sweden versus Virginia, New England, New Netherland
March 7, 2006; the map of New Sweden interposed on the New Netherland Wikipedia entry is not contemporary. It is of recent creation which (if at all, because of its interpretive purpose) belongs to an entry on Wikipedia about New Sweden (definitely not on the New Netherland page) which was established by various disenfranchised and disgruntled members of the Dutch West India Company (including Willem Usselincxs, Samuel Blommaert and Peter Minuit) under the auspices of the Swedish king. Petrus Stuyvesant had been ordered by the States General to retake the area which he did on September 25,1655, with a fleet of seven ships and a force comprising 317 soldiers and over 300 sailors. He was told to do "his utmost to revenge this misfortune not only by restoring matters to their former condition, but also by driving the Swedes at the same time from the river as they did to us". DEKONING
- Hello Koning, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not keep removing the map of New Netherlands and New Sweden from the article again; it was probably made by a wikipedian for these two articles, so yes it is surely "of recent creation". Also, please DO NOT SHOUT on talk pages. And finally, please sign your comments. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 06:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Adamsky, The map of New Sweden is wrongly annotated and its interpretation is historically incorrect. It has therefore no comtemporary meaning unless you produce an engraved map of New Sweden engraved in that specific year 1650. Even then, the map belongs on the New Sweden site only and not on the New Netherland site. Please, be respectful. DeKoning
- I promise to be respectful, however you have not yet convinced me as to how the map is not historical or does not belong in these two articles. The caption states that both areas are shown in relation to each other, so I don't see where else the map would belong. It is quite obvious that this map was created recently, and not created in the 17th century, like the paintings that are also in the article. Do not revert unless you can provide a better map yourself, otherwise you might be in violation of the three-revert rule. To sign your posting, just type four tildes (like this ~~~~). //Big Adamsky 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Adamsky, What is your interest in insisting on posting a modern interpretive map about New Sweden on a New Netherland site? If people want to know about New Sweden they can go to that Wikipedia site without any problem. The three maps (did you call them paintings?) on the New Netherland site are of the 17th century and NOT, as you appear to claim, from a later date. Not only are you disrespectful of the New Netherland site but you are also ruinous of its integrity and therefore guilty of vandalism. If you read the historical facts carefully, then you know that your modern New Sweden map's caption is erroneous because of, what you say, "both areas are shown in relation to each other". You may need to study history a bit more to understand that one area was situated temporarily contained in another one rather than being (wrongly colored) separate geo-political sections. If you are an expert on New Sweden history, please, focus on that site. I hope that Wikipedia editor Laura Scudder ☎ will be able to do something about that. Respectfully yours, DeKoning
- There isn't any rule in wikipedia that only historical maps are used as illustration. On the contrary: new maps drawn by wikipedians are encouraged. As Adamsky said the disputed drawing is not a New Sweden map but shows the two colonies together so it is certainly useful for both articles. If you think the map factually incorrect please give us clear explanations and make a better one correcting the mistakes. Zello 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Zello, New Sweden was a transitory interposition in geo-political New Netherland. A 1648 manuscript map, engraved by Jan Jansson in 1650 may illuminate this point. New Sweden was not an adjoining complement to New Netherland as your modern interpretive map seems to want to tell with its opposite, disparate coloring. If you want to make the public believe your interpretation or would like to debate this further, you ought to do that on the Wikipedia New Sweden site. Similalry, there would be no place for modern, interpretive maps of New Holland (now Cape Cod) or New Netherland on the Wikipedia New England site. Let New England deal with its own history. Respect the history of the various colonies and don't superimpose them on top of one another to try to make a subjective point. I can't give you a clearer explanation than this. Your map requires to be on the New Sweden site only, i.e., not on the Virginia, not on the New England and not on the New Netherland site. DeKoning
BKonrad/Zello/BigAdamsky: New Sweden was not based on (1) first discovery, (2) original exploration, surveying and mapping; and (3) first settlement. It was based on the initiative of various West India Company directors with prior New Netherland experience selling their services to Sweden. New Sweden was therefore an interjection in New Netherland and not a complement to New Netherland. The New Sweden map you are insisting on publishing on the New Netherland site should be only on the New Sweden site as that is the site that pertains to your argument which you are trying to support by your modern deception. Putting the New Sweden map on the New Netherland site belongs to broken history and is historically false. If you continue to post that map, it will be transferred to the New Sweden site. Respectfully yours. March 19, 2006, DeKoning
- More relevant than your three points, New Sweden was based on military control. I believe it was demonstrated that New Netherland was incapable of controlling their claimed territory, so how then is the territory actually theirs? — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That is an entirely different issue because what you state is that no one has a right to exist or to territorial integrity if incapable of defending oneself. Andorra, Luxemburg, Monaco, Estonia, even New Zealand etc. would be gone tomorrow. All I am pointing out is that New Sweden was inside New Netherland and not next to it. Hence, the map is wrong as a reflection of historical fact. March 19, 2006
Perhaps my argument may best be explained by the analogy that, during the cold war, a part of West Germany, in the form of West Berlin, lied inside East Germany. I.e., Geographically, West Berlin was not adjacent to East Germany. Perhaps it could be so depicted as a complement to East Germany if one were to draw a colored population density map instead. America, like all sovereign territories, is defined by its geopgraphical reality and not by its population distribution. The modern New Sweden map is neither a historical geographical map nor a population density map. It commingles those issues and by default is an erroneous depiction. For those who care about visual and textual accuracy, the erroneous New Sweden map does not belong on the New Netherland site as it distorts (deliberately?) the historical reality. New Netherland’s southern border started at Cape Hinlopen, just south of the Delaware Bay and was so surveyed and mapped by Cornelis Jacobsz May in 1613 and 1614. The river itself, though, was surveyed and charted by Cornelis Hendricks on the ship Unrest between 1614 and 1616. May became New Netherland’s first director in 1624. Samuel Godijn, a director of the West India Company, had a patent for the west side of the South (Delaware) River where he built a fort and established the colony of a few dozen men at Swanendael in 1630. At least 32 of them if not all were killed by the Indians in 1632. The colony’s focus had been on the whaling industry. Another director, Albert Coenraetsz Burgh had received a patent for the east side of the river. After Stuyvesant had dislodged the Swedish presence, the west side of the river fell under the jurisdiction of the City of Amsterdam (rather than the West India Company) which started the colony of Nieuwer Amstel. The origin and disappearance of New Netherland and New Sweden are very different. As certain Wikipedia editors seem to insist that they know better than the facts, I am leaving Wikipedia as mentioned on the talk page of the New Netherland site unless visual and textual accuracy is pursued by the respective Wikipedia editors. DeKoning March 20, 2006
The modern map above has no geographical or historical signifance. One needs to find out who drew it as it was drawn to mislead the unsuspecting Wikipedia reader. To continue the use of this map as a population distribution map by solely changing its caption to reflect that new thought, is a covert attempt at continuing the use of the map as a Trojan Horse. As a population map the map is not credible as New Sweden had just about 200 colonists in 1648. I would like to see contemporary census statistics that would then justify the shading of this map relative to the purple shading which makes, after all, no sense at all. Furthermore, if the false caption were to be changed as proposed by Zello, i.e., purporting to show New Sweden's relative population position to New Netherland, why doesn't he show its relative population position to Virgina? He will have to do a lot of people counting and figuring out where they lived. The map is a hoax. DeKoning
The only map of New Sweden which would make sense would be to choose a year and then fill in all the locations of the Swedish forts and show them relative the New Netherland forts and the Virginia forts. Then it would be a map to show forts rather than one attempting to depict a population distribution or geographical reality. DeKoning
[edit] Not highest % of nation emigrating
Claim about Swedes and Norwegians & Irish no longer holds: in 20th and 21st centuries emigration from various Caribbean nations has sent out comparable proportions of those nations' populations. Dogru144 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
