Talk:Evolution of the Dutch colonial empire

Proposed merger with List of Dutch East India Company trading posts

It was proposed that this list should be merged that this list should be merged with List of Dutch East India Company trading posts. I strongly oppose this proposal for historical and historiographical reasons:

• Overall, the two lists deal with different historical phenomenons.
• The Dutch East India Company covers only part of the empire during part of history: East Asia and South Africa from 1602 to 1798.
• Trading posts do not represent the Dutch Empire properly; it is also about colonial expansion, domestic and foreign politics, culture, etc., etc.

Proposal is to leave both lists in existence, but make them - and others concerning comparable matter - part of a combined or joint editing drive. Michel Doortmont (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is really between forts and factories because both were types of trading post, not between trading posts and colonies. Factories existed at the pleasure of the local ruler, forts in spite of the local ruler (even if also at their pleasure). However, both factory and fort were "phenomena" of the India companies because that is the "entity" that set them up, an enitity interested in making a profit for private investors from trade (rather than "empire for empire's sake"), so both were types of trading post. Furthermore, the Dutch monarchy/state inherited company assets (ie territory) when the companies were dissolved, so I find it difficult to see how they can be described as "different historical phenomena": centres of trade became colonies. So my view is that there should be one list, but within that list it should be clearly marked whether the location was a "factory" or "fort/colony":

• Factory = trading post set up by the EIC/WIC as a commercial enterprise in a foreign ruler's territory (e.g. Deshima, factories in Persia, Canton)
• Fort = militarily fortified trading post set up by the EIC/WIC (e.g. Malacca, Fort Orange, Fort Zeelandia (Taiwan), forts on the Gold Coast, Batavia)
• Colony = areas where Dutch settlers penetrated the hinterland, usually beginning life as a fort or set of forts (e.g. Cape Colony, New Netherland, Dutch East Indies), or islands that were occupied (e.g. Curacao), or other nations colonies' that were captured (e.g. Brazil, Angola)

There is no instance (as far as I can see) of a pure factory becoming a colony, and not all forts become colonies (e.g. Elmina), but all colonies that were not captured started out life as forts (I think?)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And also, another reason why it was not a separate historical phenomenon: unlike Britain, the Dutch state did not take any new colonies that it had not already inherited from the Companies: all it did was expand into the hinterland from existing Company territory ("hinterland" in the case of the East Indies obviously really being the "hinterarchipelago", to invent a new term). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up on my comments. In part I played devil's advocate here, as most of your arguments are of course valid. I am happy to concede to a merger, but only when a number of conditions is fulfilled and when we are clear on precise terminologies used.

From your comment there is one important element missing, namely the fact that in many instances trading posts and/or forts were NOT just what you describe them to be. Have a look at the article Treaty of Butre (1656) for instance, where the Dutch WIC brokered a protectorate over the Kingdom of Ahanta that went much further than just establishing a fortified trading post, but was definitely not the establishment of a colony either. The situation as described in this treaty or variations thereof existed in many other Dutch establishments, including all Dutch Gold Coast establishments and numerous Asian establishments. In all these cases, the Dutch formally instituted elements of - what could be described in hindsight - as colonial rule or colonial jurisdiction, in a situation of political consensus, cohabitation, or mutual acceptance with local authorities. Why is this important? It has consequences for the way in which political and social relations developed between the Dutch and the local leadership and people and how these evolved over time when the Dutch Empire changed in character and structure (take over by Dutch state, 19th century colonial policy, decolonisation). In the case of Elmina the 'special relation' with the Dutch led to the complete destruction of the town in 1873, by the British, who found there new possession more than hesitant to accept them as colonial ruler. In the case of Indonesia we find important local rulers on both sides of the political fence during decolonisation, because of historical alliances with or against the Dutch. Further back in history, the VOC created proper colonies as well, for instance in the Banda islands and the Moluccas.

In addition, the trading company governors all had a dual mandate. They held letters patent from the Company, but also from the States General (as Sovereign of the Dutch Republic), allowing them to make conquests and treaties in the name of the government, establishing direct relationships between the Dutch Republic and foreign states. As far as I am aware this was not the case with the British trading companies. In the Dutch case speaking about 'Company rule' is a historical fallacy. In terms of administrative organisation, the public administration of WIC/VOC establishments looks very much like that of an average Dutch village, with the governor as mayor or 'schout' and a judicial apparatus that was the mirror-image of that of a village or town, be it that it was filled with company officials. Historically interesting is that the public administrative and judicial system was open to locals who wished to use it.

Bottom line: a simple division in trading posts, forts, and colonies will not do with the proposed rigid definitions.Michel Doortmont (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion. Rather than treating this article as a (glorified) list, let's make it a proper article, in which the issues discussed here - and others - are dealt with in separate sections before coming to the more list like elements as individual trading posts, forts, and other establishments. Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do take your points. My worry with discussing these issues in the article is that it is flirting very closely with original research: do you have sources that show there is a consensus in academia for what you propose? BTW I am not a fan of listcruft either: I rather think that lists like these are really created for the benefit of the listmaker rather than the reader. Just go over to the evolution of the British Empire - is anyone really going to read that? I sincerely doubt it. But the list "sister article" needs to exist as an "outlet" for editors that would otherwise start bombarding the main article with the list, making that huge and unreadable too. I think the same applies to the Dutch Empire, given as well the large number of WIC/VOC establishments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree trading posts signified a state's outreach in the past, therefore the dutch east IC should be represented--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags as it has been two years and no one has completed the merge. --Diannaa ^TALK 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just awful

Aside from the lousy irregular formatting and stubby, incomplete nature of the entries, this isn't an article about the "History of the Dutch Empire". It's a list of its territories (all of them, mind, not just the East India Co.'s). Needs move and overhaul at the least, if not complete blanking and a redirect to Dutch Empire. — LlywelynII 14:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

At least the move worked. — LlywelynII 14:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Some minor rebuilds, although what it looks like we need to do is take the current mix of former governments and modern countries and

1. Use the English names for the old colonies throughout (with parenthetical Dutch names)
   (e.g., "New Holland" rather than "Australia")
2. Use the organization of the colonies throughout
   (e.g., New Holland (Australia) – as a region that was never actually administered or organized – should be a footnote to the article, as should unorganized or briefly-held trading posts; meanwhile, full-scale WIC & VOC governorates and official Dutch colonies should lead)
3. Speaking of which, the principal divisions of the article should be chronological rather than geographical
   (e.g., Corporate colonies (pre-bankruptcies); National colonies (post-bankruptcies); Claims)

The current Dutch East India Company article is very unhelpful, though, in explaining the difference between "governorates" (Batavia, Ceylon, Coromandel), "commandaries" (Malabar), "directorates" (Bengal, Surat), &c. Even the Dutch East India Company in Indonesia article doesn't really outline the administrative divisions. Anyone able to explain or copy the Dutch articles? — LlywelynII 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename to History of...

Evolution should be associated with biological aspects... Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The evolution of the Dutch Empire into Evolution of the Dutch Empire

Have the exact same scope; version without beginning "the" is older Ionmars10 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Both articles have slightly different scopes, but should not be separate articles either way. Jerry (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Those two Wikipedia articles are no different from two World History textbooks. Both focus on the same exact topic, but differ slightly in how the content is written and what events that are and are not included. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Since both articles deal precisely with the same subject they should definitely be merged. And, since the title here is the more correct/appropriate one (the definite article "the" is not needed in the title; it is superfluous, in my view), then the contents of the cognate/duplicate one should be merged into this one. I wasn't aware of the existence of the other cognate/duplicate article, and I will take a look at it now as time allows. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Now looking at them in more detail for the first time, it looks to me that the content of the beginning sections of that article should be merged here as the missing Introduction section to this one. The bottom part of that article, with a description of all the colonies of the empire, is less detailed than all the subsections contained in this one, and it can be added to the more detailed description of the colonies here. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)