Talk:New Amsterdam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
It has occurred to me that some of the history I've included up to 1625 properly belongs under the New Netherland entry, since it is about the colony as a whole, rather that the New Amsterdam settlement. Because of this, I'm going to shift some of the recently added material over there and rewrite the opening of the history section to focus more specifically on New Amsterdam.Decumanus 04:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In edit history I said "OIC should be WIC". s/OIC/VOC/ so: "VOC should be WIC" Kim Bruning 10:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Splitting up articles too much results in artificial problems, in my experience. Duplicated information-- even *gasp* some duplicated text-- seems just fine to me. As a New Yorker Magazine editor kept saying, Tell the story! Wetman 15:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's probably just my ignorance, but I had thought that the ONLY acceptable form, even in English, was Nieuw Amsterdam? - Node
- It also seems to me that this page has some POV in the form of something like "The Dutch weren't really using the land"; if that is factual, I don't know, but it seems more POV to me. (what colony WAS started with the aim of spreading a culture? I thought all colonies started as business ventures...)
-
- New Amsterdam is certainly the common form. As far as the land thing goes, the Dutch colonies were completely different than, say, the English colonies. The English were specifically interested in plantation and large-scale cultivation for its own sake. The Dutch cultivated land basically to supply food to the trading posts. Additional settlers were considered a nuisance more than anything else. The Spanish are an example a colonialism that attempted to spread its culture, specifically its religion, among the native peoples. More broadly, the Dutch weren't nearly as interested in other European powers in "claiming" land as being an overseas extension of their empire (at least in North America: I don't know about elsewhere). The Dutch colonies were for-profit enterprises, and they were not interested in broad sweeping claims like that English and Spanish made in particular, only in what could support their trading operation. If something was unprofitable, it was abandoned, arguably more readily than by other European powers. True, the other powers' colonies were intended for financial gain too, but they were also part of national ego extensions in a way that probably didn't apply near as much to States General's colonies. The Virginia Company was a join stock operaton, but also an imperial venture of the English Crown, with all that entailed, and thus their was more at stake in sustaining it than simply making a guilder. This difference, in my opinion, is probably because of the political structure of the States General, which was very different than the other European powers at the time (which were essentially absolute monarchies still). At least this is my impression. I'm not a historian, but I've read widely on this era of the history of New York, since I find it fascinating. The best source on this point about Dutch land usage is probably Mike Wallace (historian)'s book Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898, which is quite exhaustive on this topic. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- One of the big differences between English and Dutch colonization in this regard was the way the English properietors issued patents on land for settlement (basically subleasing, in a way) and encouraging further settlement and cultivation of their land by third parties, partly to grow and expand the colony's population. The West Indian Company operations were specifically against this. Settlement was intended to be kept to the barest minimum. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Excellent new material from Anon. 162.83.152.153! --Wetman 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Adriaen van der Donck
I thought people here would be interested in my peer review request for Adriaen van der Donck. Discussion has kinda died down there, so I'm trying to solicit more feedback. My goal is to get this to featured article quality. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article is now a FAC. Drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adriaen van der Donck if you're interested. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English Advice on how to construct Fort Amsterdam
On the Wikepedia New Amsterdam website is stated:
"There is evidence that the Dutch West India Company was interested in building such a fort as early as 1620, based on a letter dated that year from the English architect Inigo Jones, who had probably been contacted by the company to design the fort. In the letter, Jones advises the company to avoid constructing a timber fort out of haste, but rather to build a moated fortification with stone and lime. Jones' accompanying drawing illustrates the traditional star-design that had become prevalent because of its ability to deflect cannon fire."
I would like to see that presumed "evidence" of an English architect advising the Dutch West India Company in 1620. The Company didn’t even come into being until 1621.
Moreover, in 1620, the Netherlands had been fighting an active war since 1568 and built many dozens of fortifications including "star-design" ones as defense against Spanish intrusions. It is hard to believe that the Dutch Republic, experienced in the construction of fortifications for 52 years, would ask, require or consider advice from England; not quite as experienced in those matters and not always its best friend at the time as some of you may know.
If Wikipedia contributors want to contribute, rather than writing nonsense, they should do their homework first. With respect to Fort Amsterdam they will have to read first the Instructions to military engineer and surveyor Crijn Fredericksz who arrived on Governors Island in 1624 and who was entrusted with laying out a Citadel with Fort Amsterdam as centerpiece on Manhattan.
I am afraid that this is another example of Wikipedia's inherent flaw of publishing unsubstantiated prose, suppositions, guesses and other prejudiced or culturally biased information from people who, for the most part with respect to New Netherland, get their information from historical novels and other, often erroneous, secondary information. No scholar or academician could possibly hope to contribute to this encyclopedia as he/she would be driven away by amateurs versed in other disciplines as the map of New Sweden proves on the New Netherland site. As it is a waste of time to argue on these pages where fact should supersede ignorance, I will not remove the above paragraph and leave it up to others to do so. PS, Is it credible that the Dutch EAST India company would DeKoning
- This is a good example of why people should cite their sources. The Fort Amsterdam article says that it was the Dutch East India Company that contacted Inigo Jones. I assume that without a citation to check someone decided to "correct" East to West. I'm still trying to find out what the original author's source was though.
- I appreciate you pointing out this discrepancy, but I note it could have been done with significantly less lecturing and condescension. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but the map of New Sweden is so unforgivable a creation for any Wikipedia site that its presence on the New Netherland site corrupts and vandalizes the entire New Netherland site thus making it unworthy of any further serious contributions. The fact that it is still there in spite of reasoned argument that it is wrong and must be removed proves my point as there is no reasonable counterpoint that justifies its presence. I am merely observing that irrational and ignorant behavior rooted in games of power has triumphed over reason. This is not about being condescending but about being dismayed. DeKoning
PS When people write that Inigo Jones "had probably been contacted", my hairs rise. He either was or wasn't contacted. The contributor has a choice, go to the archival or original source and get confirmation or just post a fairytale to mislead the gullible reader. If it is not fact why post it? By using words like perhaps, possibly, probably, likely, etc. one creates immediately doubt about the story's reliability. Namely, how likely is it that the Dutch EAST India Company, which at the time had a very clear mandate that did not include the western hemisphere, would ask an English architect in 1620 to built a fort on or around Manhattan? The WEST India Company "Particuliere Instructie" of April 25, 1625 to Cryn Fredericks prove that a decision as to where to place the fort wasn't even made yet in 1624 because Cryn and Verhulst, together with the council, were also considering to erect Fort Amsterdam on the Hudson River's west side rather than on Manhattan. Story telling and subjective judgments about personalities (like, e.g., "he was a bad man", or "people didn't like him") should have no place on Wikipedia. Errors are rampant as with, for example, captions under pictures when contributers write below one map "ca. 1642" and somewhere else under exactly the same map write "c. 1635". Either one date is right or both dates are wrong. I readily concede though that I am lecturing to make my point.
- I agree completely, weasel words are to be avoided. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First sentence
the first sentences are really convoluted and confusing, can someone clean them up? I don't understand what existed from 1614-1674, was that the land grant, or what? --Awiseman 07:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expand English take over
I think the article needs to be expanded on the English take over in 1664. In particular, the terms of surrender which provided a kind of bill of rights which some argue had major impact in the American bill of rights. This is covered in The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America. WilliamKF 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oldest city
This claim, in the second paragraph, confuses me: "The town of New Amsterdam became a city when it received municipal rights in 1653 and was unilaterally reincorporated as New York City in June 1665. This makes NYC the oldest incorporated city in the United States, followed by Albany, NY, the second oldest."
Feeling skeptical, I checked some other pages and found earlier incorporation dates for many cities in New England, such as Boston, Salem, New Haven, Cambridge, Gloucester, Doveretc. Looking into it slighter closer, I found that New England cities were originally incorporated as "towns" and only "reincorporated" as cities in the 19th century. But as towns they had municipal governments and seem to have been everything New Amsterdam was, city-wise, in all but the word "city". So I am wondering-- does the claim of NYC being the "oldest incorporated city" in the United States come down to semantics, or is there something in particular that made NYC in 1653 a unique municipality, something that Boston etc lacked? If it is just a difference of terms, the claim seems misleading; if there is a governmental difference, perhaps it should be described? Pfly 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brooklyn named from gebrokeland or Breukelen?
Moved from the Early Settlement section of the article:
question to all: on the picture at the right it says "Gebrokeland" (it means "broken land"/not belonging to the mainland/less useful land) in stead of "Breukelen" (village in Holland, which later has become "Brooklyn")? How do you explain? Does Brooklyn come from "Breukelen" or "Gebrokeland/Brokenland"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.110.174 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2007
- Interesting question. Since the map is very early (1635) there was probably little settlement there at the time; "gebrokeland" seems very appropriate for the area then. The village of "Breuckelen" was chartered in 1646. Perhaps that name was choosen exactly because it both resembled the old town name Breukelen and sounded similar to what some had been calling the area ("gebrokeland"). Maybe they were trying to get away from the "less useful land" connotation. Could be a simple map maker's mistake too. (All speculation, of course.) -R. S. Shaw 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Slavery in New Amsterdam
Should it not be mentioned? The first African to visit the region was Esteban Gomez, who sailed up the Hudson as a Protuguese Pilot as early as 1525. The first African to live in New Amsterdam was Jan Rodrigues, who arrived in 1613: the first non-indigenous inhabitant of Manhattan. The first African slaves in New Amsterdam were sold were sold by pirates in 1626 (16 of them). There should be something added about slavery in New Amsterdam as it was essential to the commercial survival of the colony and to the colony's workforce. I am not the authority to do it, however. Joe 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Joe, The issue of slavery is an important one but nearly everything people seem to know about is sadly wrong and nothing less than imaginative story telling. The value of such stories is no more than the story of Snow white and the seven dwarfs. I have read many books on the subject and the factual errors and misinformation in them are astounding. That includes the book "Black Manhattan" by James Weldon Johnson. Often well-intended these writings belong under the rubric of rhetoric, not scholarship. People write often things they would like to believe rather than factually checking their [prejudiced] beliefs. Do not trust any secondary information but only use and accept primary, original source information. For that one needs to do serious and time consuming research. For example, how can Jan Rodrigues be an inhabitant of New Amsterdam in 1613 when New Amsterdam wasn't started until 1625? I am afraid that I also have to counter your suggestion that slavery was essential for commerical survival of the colony. These are all broad unsubstantiated statements which need to be addressed in future scholarly writings where the word professor or doctor alone won't be enough to cover up sloppy secondary citations. January 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.104.71 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Ignorant Indian" propaganda
The Manahattas had no legal concept of permanent ownership of land since they moved encampments on a seasonal basis and lived off whatever land they inhabited. Since the Manahattas were not familiar with European legal issues they could not have understood the concept of property deeds.
This is false, and is uncited speculation in any case. The Europeans had no compunctions about treating with tribes that had no claim to land they were treating with, and often the tribes took advantage of this fact by signing over their enemies' land on the cheap. The Europeans exercised no diligence in determining who had claim to what, and just tossed out treaties to the first groups they encountered. --76.217.95.165 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, so I removed the passage. It could be described as part of the "legend" mentioned, I suppose. But it was written as if true, even though the text clearly said we don't know what the Manhattas thought. Pfly 01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations by Secondary Sources
I removed [1] because it is wrong. Sadly, all information on web sites from official bureacratic sources at the federal, state and city level are filled with misstatments and errors. Bureaucrats are certainly not well versed in history and don't feel that they have a responsibility toward the public to be factually correct. For the last ten years I have tried them to make corrections but they don't want to know, understand or accept historic facts. I have even asked the Secretary of Education in Washington, DC, to help with the correction of so-called "official sources" but to no avail. Therefore, citations prove nothing as nearly all come from published secondary information which merely repeat errors over and over. Joep de Koning
