Talk:Dutch colonial empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / History
WikiProject iconDutch colonial empire has been listed as a level-5 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do.
Former featured article candidateDutch colonial empire is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
June 19, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted

Dutch Guiana.[edit]

I recently made an edit to this article. It was in the "introduction" or "preface", the fourth paragraph, the second sentence. The sentence reads: Nevertheless, major portions of the empire survived until the advent of global decolonization following World War II, namely the East Indies and Dutch Guiana. I changed 'Dutch Guiana' to 'Suriname', because the only colony in the Guianas, possessed by the Dutch after World War II was Suriname. I'd also like to point out that Dutch Guiana as a colony or country has never existed. Surinam has always been officially known as such or as Suriname, in both Dutch and English, the colony was often unofficially and semi-officially referred to as Dutch Guiana in the 19th and 20th century, in an analogy to British Guiana and French Guiana.

However, this change was reverted by user Davidelit. I'd thought of bringing this up here, because Dutch Guiana never existed and the right name for the colony they possessed at the time is Suriname.

Even in Dutch documentaries from that time you can see it was 'Suriname':

In old maps too: (see upper right corner)


I think the name should be just Dutch colonial empire, without capitals, just like French colonial empire (as opposed to First French Empire and Second French Empire in Europe). This is a fundamentally colonial topic, as the infobox and categories show. Dutch historiography prefers Dutch: Nederlandse koloniale rijk, Dutch colonial empire, and doesn't use "Dutch Empire" (Dutch: Nederlandse Rijk), and only Nederlandse rijk as a shorthand for Nederlandse koloniale rijk. "Dutch Empire" (Nederlandsche Rijk) was never an officially used title, the "home country" was the Dutch Republic (or "Republic of the Seven United Netherlands", as it is clumsily known in modern Dutch historiography). Moreover, WIC and especially the VOC holdings were not directly subject to the state, as the VOC operated as a quasi-state-in-a-state, with authority such as a monopoly on violence including the right to wage war, set up fortresses, appoint governors, a monopoly on trade including the right to conclude trade agreements etc. without approval from the States-General or the Stadtholder or anything. The name "Dutch Empire" capital E suggests a much larger formal and factual state control over VOC and WIC activities and colonial possessions than was factually the case, even though the Dutch state, the Republic, was ultimately responsible and accountable for lots of things (including committing colonial atrocities) the VOC and WIC did. I also see in English-language literature that "Dutch empire" is often written with a lowercase e, even though a capital E is also common. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. This aligns with the precedent set by the French example, as well as the German colonial empire, and even more so with the Belgian colonial empire (where there is no distinction between overseas and non-overseas empires, unlike in the French and German cases). Nagsb (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)MaterialWorks 14:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch EmpireDutch colonial empire – see topic directly above. It better reflects historiography's preference and avoids suggesting greater formal and factual state control over the Dutch West India Company (WIC) and Dutch East India Company (VOC) than was actually the case. The VOC and WIC were quasi-state-in-a-state organizations, and the Dutch Republic was ultimately responsible and accountable for their actions. "Dutch empire" is often written with a lowercase e in English-language literature. See the examples of the French, German, and Belgian colonial empires. "British Empire" is a well-established exception that confirms the rule. Nagsb (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: For consistency & precision Furius (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: A colonial empire is a very specific type of empire and for the sake of precision the title should reflect that. That the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal (and Italy for that matter) never ruled over any other empire than a colonial empire is no reason not to include the word colonial in the title. It is a fact that "British Empire" is a well-established exception.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No mention of Dutch ship-building dominance[edit]

I find it strange that the article makes no mention of the Dutch dominance of North European ship-building in the 16th and 17th century. Many ships built in their yards were for customers in other countries. The Dutch not only invented new types of ship, such as the fluyt, but they also introduced new technology, such as the windmill driven sawmill. They could produce ships at much lower cost (the sawmill being one reason for big savings).

Clearly, the Dutch colonies relied on long-distance maritime transport. You can't do that without ships – and you may well need customised designs to meet the requirements of lengthy voyages.

Is none of this covered in sources used by the article? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

should the apologies for the colonial past be mentioned in the history?[edit]

should the apologies for the colonial past be mentioned in the history?

see: nl:Nederlandse excuses voor het koloniale verleden Bart Terpstra (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]