Talk:Dutch Golden Age

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkass20, Haristephenkumar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section[edit]

Hello Erik,

Great article, but I have one small qualm with it: the article mixes subjects that were of a profound influence to the rest of the world with local, parochial things. Surely, Van den Vondel, no matter how great a writer he was, was not a writer of world fame. Everybody, however, still knows Rembrandt van Rijn. This is not to say that there is no place for Van den Vondel, or for Dutch writing during the Golden Age, but I don't think these subjects are central to the current topic.

To put it more cynically: isn't it remarkable how bad and underdeveloped Dutch literature was during the Golden Age, given the amount of other cultural aspects in the Northern Low Countries were blooming during those days? branko

Hi Branko, I do agree that Dutch literature is a lesser topic from a world perspective. The small paragraph dealing with the subject shows this. The same goes for sculpture and music, all small sections and at the bottom of the article. I would say that pariochial is a bit of an overstatement. Surely the mentioned writers are still well known names for most learned Dutch people, and shed a bit of light on the era under discussion, which had everything to do with an exceptional intellectual climate, to which they probably will have contributed. In my opinion, someone who really wants to know about the Dutch Golden Age and reads the whole article, deserves to hear their names at least once, they will show up in other contexts and books about the subject. Erik Zachte 23:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

End of the Golden Age[edit]

It's a great article, but shouldn't it contain a paragraph about the ending of the Golden Age by the corruption in the VOC? Gemertp 08:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Dutch version has a section about the end of the Golden Age, but unfortunately that doesn't cite any sources. -- MiG (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just checking in to say that almost nine years after the original comment, the article is still excellent, yet still lacks this section which is required based on the fact that we no longer live in the Dutch Golden Age.

A reference[edit]

Here I go plugging my own site again (it's highly relevant :) If anyone is less lazy than I, go look at http://eh.net/encyclopedia/Harreld.Dutch.php and see about adding some information aboud the Dutch economy during the Golden Age. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simon Stevin[edit]

Simon Stevin was not Dutch, and published his important works before 1600. Should he even be in this article? Piet 09:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Simon Stevin would have considered himself Dutch, and - apart from his scientific work - he played his role in politics and public life early in the Dutch Golden Age. He was advisor of Prince Maurice and director of the (still existing) Dutch department of Waterstaat. He was from Bruges, Flanders. In his age Flanders was part of the Southern Netherlands, an integral and important part of the Dutch Republic, which covered present day's Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and small parts of Germany and France. You're right, today Bruges is located in Belgium, but Belgium did not exist until 1831. Jaho 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section[edit]

I've moved a few pieces around, so culture is now one section. Problem is that the "Painting" subsection is now too complex. It is rightfully the most extensive section but I think it is too long for in this general article. I propose a new article is created for "Dutch Golden Age, Painting", in which case the subsection can be shortened here and expanded in the new article. Piet 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Title it "Dutch Golden Age painting". >>sparkit|TALK<< 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Piet 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now the painting section is gone. I hope I didn't kill any information in the process. Probably some changes in the text will be necessary, I will reread but undoubtably forget some things. Piet 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC) no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:701:C670:DC94:FF9:F300:236E (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Slave trade[edit]

I’ve added a section on how Dutch wealth during the “golden period” came partly from their extensive slaving. For references and for those interested in the appalling human cost of the Dutch wealth, se the following links:

--Stor stark7 Talk 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the slave trade information is left out is because most of the supposed Dutch slave traders were actually jews who had moved from spain to the netherlands.

This section needs to go back into the article. Bram Jacobs (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why 1584?[edit]

Why is 1584 used as the beginning of the Dutch "Golden Age"? William the silent was assassinated that year, but I can't think of any other major marker. Wouldn't something like the 1581 Oath of Abjuration make more sense? --Stomme (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question. The first sentence says 1584 - 1702, but these years are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Those dates were added in 2006 without explanation (diff). I don't think that there a generally accepted definition exist, so I removed the years. The phrase "roughly the seventeenth century" should be enough. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the form of government?[edit]

There seems to be no information about how this Republic functioned. It was in search of such information that I came to this article. --Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why here? Dutch Republic is the place to start. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerance[edit]

rm

since nobody in fact does seem to want to discuss or supply refs for this common knowledge summary. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, IIRC, the real problem with that section is timeframe. Seems to refer to a national characteristic as having been preexisting during the period of its formation. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plus it should explain the actual restrictions on religious minorities during the period. The section as it is, effectively free of facts, would probably be better removed until it is improved. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Here is a clean up:

Toleration
The Dutch were internationally oriented even before this period. This may at least partially explain the development of Toleration as a hallmark of the national character, i.e.attributing it to their dependence on international commerce and good foreign relations. This national trait may in return have been particularly applied to toleration towards minority views and interests.
It can also be said that the Reformation had contributed to this mild attitude towards dissenters. Protestants stressed the importance of each person's individual conscience in determining how to interpret the Bible, rejecting central dogmas and a fixed clerical hierarchy to enforce them.
This almost proverbial Dutch tolerance (rather strong today, less so perhaps in the 17th century, cf. also religion below) made it easy for foreigners to travel or even immigrate (often as refugees) to the Netherlands. Thus some Dutch cities became to some extent a "melting pot". Jews from Portugal and Belgium fled the zealots of the Spanish inquisition and philosophers like Baruch Spinoza and René Descartes published their most famous works first in the Netherlands.

72.228.150.44 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but the information in the religion section is more factual and covers nearly all these points. Perhaps addition of some of these points to that section would be best. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and still retains some weasel lingo. Too bad we can't just say "They rocksorz teh Toleranz!" 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardi jews involvement in the "dutch" slave trade[edit]

I added that the sephardi jews, who moved to the netherlands because of the spanish inquisition, were the people who brought the african slave trade to the netherlands. Do to the fact that historians have no evidence that any ethnic germanic dutch person was a slave trader or slave owner while there is alot of evidence that sephardi jews who lived in spain were involved in the african slave trade it is not to hard to see that sephardi jews who moved to the netherlands would have brought african slave tradeing with them.

If wikipedia is going to blame the netherlands for the african slave trade wikipedia has to prove that it was actually ethnic germanic dutch people who were the instigators of the "dutch" slave not a group non-germanic people who moved to the netherlands and brought the african slave trade with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.141.90 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense! No wonder no-one has considered it worth a reply.Leutha (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

During the 16th century, traders and Jesuit missionaries from Portugal reached Japan for the first time, initiating direct commercial and cultural exchange between Japan and the West. Oda Nobunaga conquered many other daimyo using European technology and firearms; after he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590. Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice, but following defeats by Korean and Ming Chinese forces and Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were withdrawn in 1598.[34] This age is called Azuchi–Momoyama period (1573–1603). Tokugawa Ieyasu served as regent for Hideyoshi's son and used his position to gain political and military support. When open war broke out, he defeated rival clans in the Battle of Sekigahara in 1600. Ieyasu was appointed shogun in 1603 and established the Tokugawa shogunate at Edo (modern Tokyo).[35] The Tokugawa shogunate enacted measures including buke shohatto, as a code of conduct to control the autonomous daimyo;[36] and in 1639, the isolationist sakoku ("closed country") policy that spanned the two and a half centuries of tenuous political unity known as the Edo period (1603–1868).[37] The study of Western sciences, known as rangaku, continued through contact with the Dutch enclave at Dejima in Nagasaki. The Edo period also gave rise to kokugaku ("national studies"), the study of Japan by the Japanese.[38]

Why was all this information ignored? The first contact with the Western culture was made with the Portuguese traders, the Dutch attacked the Portuguese and gained control of their concessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.135.159 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dutch Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch involvement in slave trade[edit]

I'd like to preface this by saying I am myself a Dutch person. I think it's completely appalling that there's ZERO mention of the Netherlands' involvement in international slave trade, and also the comments in the discussion page saying the community should first "prove" that it was the "ethnically Germanic" Dutch people who were involved in slave trade. This should be fixed ASAP. This is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoracicTrack58 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a shame to see how it's callously omitted. Furthermore, it was not only Sephardic Jews who were involved. Bram Jacobs (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be written to glorify the Netherlands, rather than to accurately depict history[edit]

The article is problematic in that it does not even mention the slave trade or the crimes of the VOC. The slave trade brought huge investments to the Dutch stock market and was a very profitable enterprise. It is a highly relevant part of the Dutch Golden Age, but this article clearly wants to bury this fact. The article uncritically uses the word 'trade' for what was a de facto exploitation of powerless territories under colonial oppression. The explanation of the 'protestant work ethic' is only taken serious by other protestants and few secular scholars would agree with the weight given to this dimension. What was important about protestantism was that it allowed usury, laying the foundation for modern day capitalism. In general, this article is uncritical, unreflecting and written from a eurocentric world view that sees everything as auxiliary and expendable except itself. It is an anti-historical horror piece. Bram Jacobs (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Museum announces that it stops using using the 'Golden Age' term[edit]

In Dutch news today: Amsterdam Museum (not a minor one; for instance it's the collection holder of The Night Watch) announces that it stops using the term 'Golden Age' (article 1 - opinion piece by the museum's dirctors and staff) (article 2 - context piece by newspaper reporter). Translating a key paragraph in the opinion piece: 'In Western historiography, the 'Golden Age' has a prominent position, strongly connected to national pride. However, positive connotations of the term, such as prosperity, peace, wealth and innocence, don't cover the historical reality of this era. Think of poverty, war, forced labor, and human trafficking, in a context in which Amsterdam ruled over various overseas occupied territories.' Spinster (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

=> I think this could give substance to a 'controversy' section. It has stirred some commotion in Belgian media too with responses from right-wing politicians Rutte in the Netherlands ([1]) and De Wever in Belgium ([2]), with others (Johan Lievens) defending the decision of the museum ([3]). Bram Jacobs (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_Golden_Age&oldid=1194052245"