Hi, as a Dutchman I absolutely love the video, it is always nice to hear about the great things your ancestors achieved. And secretly, though us Dutchies say we aren't a very nationalistic people, most Dutch people still feel a bit of pride when they hear that 'we' founded New York, one of the more well-known, progressive and prominent cities in the US. However, you made one translation error, which might confuse some non-Dutch speakers or (Dutch) people who have little understanding of water management. You say that Wall street is where 'the wall' used to be, indicating that there was a literal wall, like a city wall (with a picture of a wall shown). In your defense; it also had a wall to protect the city, but wall in Dutch is "muur", so it doesn't explain the name 'Wall Street'. In Dutch "een wal" is another word for a dike (though the word is also used to describe "docking a ship" or "stepping on dry land from a ship", which is "aan wal gaan"). So wall street was were the dike used to be that protected New Amsterdam against rising water levels during spring-tides, something that is very common in Dutch city planning and water management. That is actually why we use(d) windmills; to pump the water from the lower, often inhabited and/or agricultural lands, to the higher areas behind "de wallen/de dijk" (nowadays we use pumps, that don;t rely on wind and therefore is more reliable). This is why the word "wal" or "dijk" is often found in the names of Dutch cities, villages, suburbs and streets. So fun fact; "Wall Street" therefore has a similar etymology as "de Wallen" (the red-light-district in Amsterdam). Technically ,Wall street should actually be called "Dike street" in English ;).
No wall street is called wall street because that's were the fence was put to keep the natives out the wall or wooden fence was knocked down and became a a street wall street.
@@mrbrainbob5320 Wall Street was originally known in Dutch as "de Waalstraat". Henke was correct. There is one other theory of the origin: The theory that Wall Street was named after Walloons-the Dutch name for a Walloon is Waal. The Dutch were not horrible to Native people. They were actually fairly progressive, compared to other settlers.
I know this is a bit of an old comment but I’m curious about something I read in an old marriage registry for the New Netherlands in the mid-1600s and I couldn’t find any info online. I’m writing a book and when researching names of the area and time, I came across an interesting name: Ulderick. All the other names seemed common, like Josef, Andries and Jan. I didn’t come across it in any other documents. Just curious if you’ve ever heard of this name before or a similar one? Sorry if this is completely random but it piqued my interest.
Hi, that’s a late respons indeed 😜. As far as I know Ulderik is a German name, but since the Dutch and German languages have common roots, it might be that it used to be a common name here: there are quite a lot of names that aren’t used anymore nowadays. Some of those names are considered to be old fashioned. Also, after the Second World War many Dutch people stopped giving German names to their kids and some even changed their German last name (a friend of mine had a grandmother that changed her last name for that reason). But whether that’s the reason Ulderik isn’t used anymore, I don’t really know 😅. Another possibility is that Ulderik might’ve had German ancestry, which is also not uncommon, migration to the Netherlands happened often, both due to religious persecution, like the Lutherans from Germany and the Calvinists from France, but also for job opportunities. Funny, but my phone keeps correcting the name to Ulderik (without the c), which actually is the Dutch spelling, so maybe I’m completely wrong here and it still is an uncommon Dutch name 😝. So please consider this answer as speculation 😉. I think it’s genuinely interesting that you’re writing a book: when it’s published, please let me know the title, I’ll look for it and buy and read it when I can 😊.
this is how it happened: The dutch lost new amsterdam in 1664 by a ( sneaky) attack by the english. No declaration of war, the english way. However the dutch won the war in 1667 and traded it off for Surinam ( sugar and salt). Then in 1672 the dutch where allied with th english, but that didn't stop them from attacking the dutch together with the french and some german states. Against all the odds the dutch won this war again and also seized new york in 1674. To bargain the english out of the coalition with the french, it was given back. So the english did not take new amsterdam so easily as it is portrayed by most. Also a settlement with the english was brokered regarding the ( dutch) inhabitants of the city, securing their freedom to worship and express and this document is part of the foundations of the us constitution.
And how about the hardest and most expensive war in English history against the dutch settlers in South Africa during the Boer war. Eventually the Boer’s had to concede to free their women and children from the consentration camps. So those sneaky tactics never stoped.
And England was then invaded in 1688 by a Dutch fleet aided by English protestants to remove the Catholic King James II from the throne, which is known as the Glorious Revolution, the last succesful invasion of England in history. Afterwards William III, who was stadtholder of the Netherlands became king of England and ruled with his wife Mary.
@@Ozymandias1 Just imagine seven MP's inviting the EU for a Glorious Liberation. Installing equal representation, an elected House of Lords, and restoring laborers rights. Having fair elections and leaving the UK to the new sovereign parliament.
@871 British boy Brits were losers at the time, you might have gotton New York but you lost the war in 1667, still the biggest humiliation to date. This when the Dutch destroyed almost the entire Brittish fleet and stole the best UK ship (Royal Charles) and used it as target practice after. The stern of the ship is still on display in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Peace on Dutch terms was unstoppable after this happened. A country of only 2.000.000 people, yet the richest country in the world at the time, whereas the Brits were nearly broke at the time:)
@@roadrage9191 There wasn't a UK in 1667. But yes it was a humongous defeat, even the English acknowledged it. The Great Plague of London in 1665, the Great Fire of London in 1666 and the Raid on the Medway in 1667 are together considered to be one of the worst periods in English history.
Soviet Union je bent Nederlands en communist? Heb je niet genoeg boeken gelezen of informatieve filmpjes zoals deze gekeken? Het communisme is de meest dodelijke en onderdrukkende ideologie die we kennen. Of is je naam niet serieus bedoeld?
...the Fur Trade, and the Timber trade, and the Fishing trade... - realize the Dutch had 80 percent of the worlds trading ships at the time with over 25,000 at a time that the English had only 3,000 trading ships. Their navy was the largest on the planet and spread over the world. Timber from New Netherland was a huge import to support that navy. Peter Stuyvesant was not the last Director General of New Netherland. When the treaty was signed at the end of the 3rd Dutch War, they traded New Amsterdam for a small bit of Surinam that the English had claimed as well as the two tiny spice islands of AI and Run in the East Indies preventing the Dutch from consolidating the monopoly on the Spice islands/trade. The Director General position continued from the Dutch island of Curacao from Willemstad which defaulted to become the capital of the Dutch American colonies after they ceded New Amsterdam. Your military comments not correct - just a bad/common assumption. Consider Binckes and Evertsen's recapture of New Amsterdam and also consider their raids and the destruction of many English tobacco plantations on Chesapeake Bay during the Anglo-Dutch wars and their seizing of the fully laden English tobacco fleet and diverting it to Amsterdam. Consider they had a couple dozen colonies throughout the Caribbean and had held Brazil even for around 40 years. The Dutch presence in America wasn't just confined to North America. You might do well to look into the English Navigation Acts as well. Huge part of the story of colonial America. Buccaneers Reef dot com
You are so right about the Dutch and he left so much out. He didn't even mention Dutch whaling and how much whaling was going on in America at that time. Nor did he mention the English attacking a town in New Netherlands and selling the inhabitants as slaves to Virginia Colony. Nor the fact that the Dutch had trading sites and forts in America as far back as 1609. They were not folks who came later, but were there at the same time the English were trying to get Jamestown started. We might be all speaking Dutch if it wasn't for the fact they were caught up in wars with Spain, France, and England, who all wanted to take them over and control trade. The English, French, and Spanish were also all about the money, they just hid it behind a veil of religion. The English kept sending out their colonists from Massachusetts Bay Colony to encroach on the Dutch Colony and settle on Long Island, forcing the Dutch to throw them out, which they attempted to do. This guy also failed to mention the fact that the Dutch Colony was owned and controlled by the Dutch West India Company, who had a huge trade world wide and who also owned the Dutch East India Company. Their American colony was a small part of their huge network and when it didn't serve them well, they cut their losses and traded it to the English. As for the English Puritan colonists, they were the political, "Parliamentarians and Round Heads", that gained the thrown, but in the end lost their battle to rule England. When Oliver Cromwell got the boot, they had no other alternative than to get out of the country. After all if you rise up against your government, cut off your kings head and proceed to despoil all of the countries monasteries and churches, you are bound to lose the popularity vote. The only reason there were two separate colonies of Puritans, at the start, was you had the right wing and left wing of this political/ religious group. The Plymouth colonists had become rather liberal since their stay in Holland, and thus did not get along well with their more strict Massachusetts Colony Puritan neighbors. However, Winthrip and his bunch of Massachusetts Bay Colonists had much more wealth and backing, so were able to flood the colony with more shiploads of their people, eventually uniting it into one colony. The settling of America had very little to do with religious tolerance, ergo the Salem witch trials...Massachusetts Bay Colony was not interested in anyone else's religious freedom. The English this entire time just went around taking over the Dutch trading forts and every Dutch Colony they could get their hands on the world over, from Australia, to Tasmania, to you name it. They were not the first ones there, they just liked to think they were, so they lied about it. Charles II of England even gave the Dutch Colony of New Netherlands to his brother James, the Duke of York, when it wasn't yet controlled by the English. How does an English Monarch give away territory that doesn't belong to him?! The English were real, "Slick Willy's." The whole thing gets weirder because William of Orange, who was a Dutch Prince at the time, was the son of Mary, daughter of Charles I, whom Cromwell chopped the head off of. William married Mary, his 1st cousin, daughter of James, the Duke of York, (yes the same Duke of York, who was given New Netherlands by his brother, Charles II.) James succeeded his brother Charles II to the thrown but didn't last long. William & Mary were made king and queen, after James got the boot, and William became William III, King of England. So there you have a Dutch King ruling England from 1689 - 1702, until his death. So who really won in that power struggle?! Confused yet?! Just forget everything you were ever taught in school, it was all rubbish.
He's correct on the military part in the sense that Dutch first only wanted to expand their trade empire from all European seas over the oceans. But they were still fighting the Spanish for their liberty and with war and money so related they felt they had to take the war to the oceans and hurt the Spanish and Portuguese colononial empire by capturing their ships. That led to the capture of the Portuguese colony in Brazil, and despite beeing quite idealistic at first in creating a second Netherlands with civil rights and multiculturalism and even plans for a university, they kept running the plantations with slaves and captured Elmina on the West-African coast too keep the slaves coming in. That's how the Dutch got into the slavetrade and became a more regular evil colonial power. But between roughly 1580 and 1630 it was mostly about trade, trading posts and good relations with the locals. There was little need for much military power.
Nice to have someone at least pointing out some of the true facts about my Dutch ancestry in America. Much of the Dutch history of this country has been subverted deliberately and otherwise, and it is really good that you are trying to correct some of these errors. I can recommend three books which are pretty good, and are as follows: A Description of New Netherlands by Adriaen Van Der Donck. An English translation from the Dutch writings of Adriaen Van Der Donck, who was a resident for some time in New Netherlands. It has his observations about the Dutch trade with the Indians and many other observations as well. The Edge of New Netherlands by L.F. Tantillo. A book about Dutch Forts and fortifications with good illustrations. William Penn And The Dutch Quaker Migration To Pennsylvania by William I. Hull. A very in-depth book about Penn and his travels in the Netherlands and his influence in settling the Dutch in Pennsylvania. Some of these Dutch were from Krefeld, Duchy of Cleve's, Netherlands, and were the original founders of Germantown, Pennsylvania, and the originators of the label, "Pennsylvania Dutch." They settled there in 1683. It is true that there were many German Quakers who also came to Penn's Colony, but they were not called, "Pennsylvania Dutch." The founders of Germantown were Dutch Quakers and Mennonites, from Krefeld, part of the Duchy of Cleve's, under the authority of William of Orange, a Dutch Prince of the Netherlands. It would be nearly two centuries before it would become annexed into part of Prussia. Germantown got its name from a Quaker leader by the name of Pastorius who was a member of the, "Frankfurt Company", who had bought land from Penn, but who didn't go himself, nor any of the other Germans of this company, until years after the Krefled Dutch had already settled it. It wasn't until after 1709 that the flood of German immigrants rose so high through all of Eastern Pennsylvania as to submerge the Dutch settlers from Krefeld, and their descendants; and intermarriage, as well as superior numbers and the adoption of the German language, speedily obliterated the Dutch origins of the town. Historians did the rest by never looking deeper than the Germans, and confusing the facts, perpetuated a falsehood that continues to this day.
I enjoyed that, mind you we retook New Netherlands in 1673 but like commented below we traded it for Surinam and some rights int the east indies. Nice piece of trivia. when we traded in New Amsterdam the English agreed to granting the inhabitants similar rights of trade, religion and personal freedom. Which was probably one of the greater contributing factors of the American revolution.
Leander V Dankjewel! I need to record my Alexander the Great lecture sometime. I happen to be living in Leiden this month, so greetings from Nederland, as well!
Your series on New Netherland, New France and New Spain really makes me think that maybe the way we understand North American history is changing. The British were the most important colonizer of the part of North America that is now the United States, but not the only European colonial power to influence modern American culture. I think the Dutch, the French and the Spanish had more influence than we often think, and certainly more than is usually taught in schools. Although the Dutch colony was centered on the Hudson river, they controlled the Delaware and Connecticut rivers as well. I think they must have brought colonists into eastern Pennsylvania as well as Upstate New York, but you make no mention of that. All credit is usually given to William Penn for pioneering settlement in the Delaware River region, but if there had been both Dutch and Swedish colonies in that area before he arrived there must have been settlers there as well. I would like to hear more about Dutch settlement in the Delaware River region. My second point is that some Americans are descended from those Dutch and Swedish colonists. It would make sense then that their ancestors may have resented it when the colony became British and that those colonists could have inseminated the republican spirit in America that eventually let to the American Revolution and the independence of the United States from Great Britain a few decades after the Seven Years War and its outcomes in North America. After all, some say that the Seven Years War started with a squamish between the Britiish and the French over Fort Duquesne (the French outpost linking Canada and Louisiana by defending the forks of the Ohio), which is now in Pennsylvania (rather than West Virginia or New York).
Nieuw Amsterdam negotiated that if they were to become English they would keep their civil rights and self governance and freedom of religion as had been the case in the Dutch period. The culture of Nieuw Amsterdam as this melting pot peoles is believed to be a prototype for the later culture of the USA. As is the capitalist approach of money before national glory.
@@vingerhoedskruid1 that's not really true Virginia had already practiced self government and religious tolerance the Dutch didnt really have a major impact in that regard
I'm very interested in this as I am a direct descendant of Joris Rapalje and Michael Pauluz Van der Voort. There was a lot more to the wall of Wall St. than you alluded to. The story of why the wall was built. It's my understanding that Michael Pauluz Van der Voort used his water vessel to carry some of the wood used in the wall. Would love to find out more about him.
+Carolyn Withrow Thats funny,but Rapalje isnt a real name? In Dutch, rapalje stands fore,,,,gemeen volk,,,Translate to bad people. Rapalje, Joris Jansen (hugenoot); een van de allereerste immigranten in de V.S. (Fort Orange, 1623) en stichters van Nieuw Amsterdam in 1626 (nu New York) Maybe the using a seccond chance to go to New Amsterdam.. Ps sorry for this.
There were a lot of Flemish Protestants in New Netherland and New Belgica, and also people from French speaking Belgium New Belgica was next to New Netherlands.
This history is very incomplete without bringing up the Dutch East India Company and how it influenced much of our nation's early times before becoming a nation. They are who financed the trip, right? You know VOC was the first multinational corporation by all standards- how simply appropriate and enlightening in so many ways.
You get me on something every time, my friend! The British had corporations of this sort, as well, so I'll be sure to mention the role of corporations in another segment. I still maintain that I should send scripts to you before these videos go into production!
Tom Richey ...and I maintain that you have the schooling and are the teacher, and I have the luxury of being a bookworm who is adept at search engine- so if I bring anything to the table it is what reading a lot, and knowing which online resources to use, and how to comprehend them. In this instance- my years of historical fiction reading, mixed with a refined search allowed me to make this comment- any one of your students is equally as capable of adding what I do- I ain't special. In fact, I expect your students to eventually make me look positively ignorant... that should society's goals regarding academics. (now there is an entire epistemological argument on what is "knowledge" these days- and a serious anti-intellectual effort so I hope you understand I referring to reality based knowledge, and not magical thinking argued from special pleadings and anecdotal evidence) Perhaps too deep? Can you read my subtext?
***** That's the thing about a subtext... We can never know if we get it or not! I'm about 99% sure that you would love to be a fly on the wall during some of the discussions that I have with my students in class.
I was immediately thinking about the VOC as well. Then again, it's pretty cool the jews are mentioned as they had a large share in the success of our trading business - without Sephardic money, big chance Dutch overseas trading would probably have been a lot less interesting.
ScarlettShinzon But wasn't the reason the :Jews" had so much mooney was because they were pretty much forced into the banking business through religious reasons from other oppressive religions? I don't remember the precise history- it was something I lost but read... previous era than VOC... but history is a series of connections and links.
sjef de belg I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for educating me a little further on this subject - of course, being in the US, I learned the British version of how this all went down.
it was just before the war 1664 (2e Dutch/English ) it was taken, the Dutch won the warin 1667...so in the peacetalks Vrede van Breda it was decieded that the English could keep New Amsterdam but the Dutch would keep Suriname and Run witch they took from the English. Because trade (nutmeg monopoly bacause of Run and gold in Suriname ) was more valuble than a little piece of land between al English and French states.
The Dutch retook New Amsterdam in 1673 (during the 3rd Anglo-Dutch war: 1672 - 1674). During the negotiations for the Peace of Westminster, the final decision was to trade more or less back to the status-quo-ante and they traded it for Run (Spice Island captured by the English) and Surinam. In 1672 the Dutch Republic experienced a joint attack from England, France and the bishoprics of Cologne and Munster (West-Germany); but turned the tables at sea by defeating the English fleets. Then in 1688 the Dutch invaded England and dethroned James II (the former Duke of York). This was done by a fleet 4 times the Spanish Armada, but also with a lot of English refugees who had fled for James II on the ships. As the outcome of that invasion (which was desired by a lot of Englishmen and happened with very limited shooting) went reasonably well, the English/Brits now call the Dutch invasion "The Glorious Revolution". With William of Orange and his wife Mary on the English throne in 1689, the Dutch didn't need to retake control of the New Netherlands anymore, as they established in England free trade and shipping to the colony for Dutch merchants.
My blood ancestors the Meseroll's (Meserole's) came from Groningen, Netherlands, Holland, Netherlands, and Picardie, France for both Dutch Reform church beliefs, and French Huguenot beliefs. My ancestors moved to Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and New Brunswick, NJ between 1663-1664
+Tom Richey Nearly everywhere in the cities in the Netherlands "de Wallen" (The Walls) is a red light district. It is still the red light district in Amsterdam, as well as in Utrecht. In Hoorn it was centred around the Westerpoort (Western Gate). I would be very surprised if that was not the case in Nieuw Amsterdam as well. Maybe an interesting tidbit to give students.
Not quite. In Utrecht it is the Rode Brug(red bridge), but until 1920's the Wallen were pretty much prostitution free. only after the area became safer with the taming of the Zuyderzee(South Sea) prostitution moved to this part of Amsterdam. Back in the day these houses were mainly businesses.
Love this channel, but the Dutch word for wall is not "wall". It's not at all sure if the wall at the north side of New Amsterdam is the origin of the name Wallstreet. The Dutch name for the street was "Waalstraat". Waal means either Walloon or river. Peter Minuit ( the guy who bought Manhattan from the Indians ) was a Walloon. That might be one explanation. Another explanation could be the defensive ditch that ran along the wall, this could be the "waal" ( Dutch for river) explanation. A third explanation could be the Dutch word "wal", but that means rampart, not wall. It might be that the wall was on top of a rampart?
De Wallstreet is vermoedelijk vernoemd naar kolonisten uit de Zuid-Nederlandse provincie Henegouwen: Walen. ‘Wall’ verwijst dus niet naar een ‘muur’, maar naar de Walen. 😉
if wall street had a dutch entomology I think it meant something slightly different. Wall in dutch is more like a wall meeting water. Like a pier, but not going into the water, more like parallel to the water. Pier by the way is spelled the same in dutch. If we are talking entomology anyway I think it is save to say it comes from dutch as well. Makes sense to use dutch names for any form of waterworks since we are the freaking final bosses of waterworks
However, the English arrived taking Manhattan and bringing English w/ them, ergo, 'wall'. It was an exceedingly tall palisade of blazed slender tree trunks running along the far back side of the fort to keep out the "bad people", probably indians, as well as an enemy attack coming from behind. Each trunk being about 7-8 inches in diameter. All uniform and strong w/ the pointed tips! Within the environs of the said fort were the houses of VIPs, the market, other residences and the bowling green, etc. Weaponry and forces too. as the years went on, by the time of Madison, wharves/businesses grew up first on Broadway, straight along the Hudson. Picketts were no doubt stationed to keep watch atop the wall, scoping out the territory (hence the word picket, as in sending a soldier to pickket and picket fence and walking a picket line. History can be so interesting!
BTW, by 1790 the fort was demolished. Broadway was REALLY wide and STRAIGHT along the Hudson! Anything farther out on the water today is landfill and MUCH has changed... one may wish to check out old maps online! YT has some really good ones!
Per Wiki, "did not tolerate full in the colony, and was strongly committed to the supremacy of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1657 he refused to Lutherans the right to organize a church. ... In 1657, the Quakers, who were newly arrived in the colony, drew his attention." Quaker John Bowne was arrested for practicing Quakerism in his NYC home, and sent to Holland for trial, in the mid-1600s.
What you explain in how they treated where they went, resulted in that The Netherlands where the only ones to trade with Japan, up to the late 1800's.. Portugese went there before Dutch, yes, but like the Spanish, they came also to put their religion on them, and Dutch came to trade only..Japanese Emperors liked that, and excluded the whole world out, exept the Dutch. A part of history no one tells..
The Dutch were given an ultimatum by the English: You can either trade us New Netherlands for some South-American colony we don't care about anymore, or you can lose it in a war. Wars are costly... the rest is history :P.
I am dutch accually Friesian...My Family were all born in Friesland....I too have been looking into the colonies and can help add to Your search...The Dutch are not known for Their greed as You were there in the land Yourself we are very easy going by nature..... A wee something I know is; the first place the Dutch settled the was the first American state of Delaware.Bay...They didn't fight with the french n english not because They couldn't (They fought julius ceasar back and won )to stay independent of the catholic pope....They will "bow to no man but God "as commanded...... If anything the Dutch were looking for a port for trade or were trying to escape from the papal pressure of rome...The Dutch mapped over 2/3 of Canada without claiming the land unlike the other scallywag masonic pirates who are still fighting over Canada to this day....The "Dutch" (german slang) accually Friesians named Harlem after after a town in Friesland called Haarlem as well as the city of New Netherland /Fort Orange/ New York which was made build able by the Dutch putting in the canals... The Dutch also discovered Australia and New (Zeeland) but oh no here comes england with her masonic pirates on order from their queen lizzy again to take all the credit and riches for world domination as usual. The Dutch were known to be the most accurate map makers ( probably due to The Dutch being the largest shipping fleet at the time) and england couldn't have that either as one can see their dominance throughout history has a way of repeating itself.
@@EdinburghFive What was the process? They went through the German lands to the Netherlands? Or did they g through the Atlantic and settled straight on the Netherlands? And what are the famous names which settled there? Cabots? Pallavicinis? Who else?
Hi @Gilgal Biblewheel I suggest you get online and search for research paper on sites such as JSTOR , Springer, etc., and even try Academia. Venice was a powerful entrepot and banking center for many centuries. It merchants and bankers spread out across Europe and the Mideast in order to participate in the trade in other cities, to protect their business interests, and to gather critical intelligence that would assist in their business affairs. War also carried Venetian merchants to European cities. For example, Spanish wars in the Low Countries needed to be financed and soldiers paid. The Venetian bankers and others such as the Genoese and Florentines, were there to take care of the job. The Venetians and Genoese had major commercial fleets to carry the trade goods of the far and middle east to the ports of Europe. Because of this they established merchant houses and banks in the ports their ships visited.
@@EdinburghFive I'll try to look into those websites. I'm surprised that the Palavicinis had an influence on both Protestantism as one branch intermarried with Oliver Cromwell and his descendants, and other branches became Cardinals in Rome. Napoleon paternal side I believe a Paravicini. And the Sforza-Palavicini branch had the 7 headed dragon as insignia/helmet like the 7 headed dragon of Revelation 12 in the Bible. Plus this family was known to have descended by Persians. Perhaps the Pahlavi Shahs were another branch to their genealogical tree. But I do wonder what other Venetian families are well-known today. It is claimed that they were the original Canaanites who migrated from Jebus to Tyre and Sidon the merchant cities during the time of Joshua and Judges. And they colonized Carthage. When the Phoenician cities fell under Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great Carthage became the new merchant center. And from Carthage they were brought to Rome as slaves. After being set free they migrated to Venice.
Hi@@gilgalbiblewheel6313 - Not sure where you have found that version of the origins of the people of Venice. Venice's beginnings, although interesting are much simpler and occurs much later. Cheers
haha im sure it was dutch free trade and basic human rights layed the groundwork for the Usa feel free to massage me any time Tom or visit old netherlands im from there also awesome webseries btw! Fijne dag verder! :)
You have a point here. I actually spent a month in the Netherlands this summer and learned a bit about this from a global perspective. We don't typically learn about about the trade in the U.S. (for a colony that was much more valuable to the Netherlands). Thanks for the feedback!
I'm surprised he didn't touch on thos. French and Dutch Walloons came to escape religious persecution. They were more than fur traders and farmers - and preceded Stuyvesant by many, many years (where Battery Park now stands).
A shame the Brazil wasn’t completely taken over by the Dutch. It certainly would be in a better state than Brazil is today. The Portuguese with their reconquista inquisition mind didn’t develop nor do anything for the land the colonized.
You are just repeating what other do, nyc and Albany. Ther was so much more.Kingston or Wiltwyck, corn, maze fields, the Esopus wars. And Long Island, New Jersey’s Deckertown. I give you an F, D minus at best
The "lead me"l ed them to be the only nation to be allowed to trade with Japan 400 years ago and still going..while the other countries of today are "just"getting into trading thare since the start of the 1900 or so. Bewerwijck, Harlem are aslo Dutch cities, now parts of the giant city New York that it is today.
Tom Richey We don't need credit......only real credit:'' Interesting vid mate! Will have a look in a book I have about New York and Holland, are some funny facts in there:)
Wall street being the street where the wall was. That's boring but very dutch....streets are named after what they are.. so everyone knows exactly whats where. Like Milk street...where the milk is sold. 😉 Church street...the street where the church is located. 😉 Not very creative but its logical. We dutch are strait forward and blunt people. 😁
Tom Richey Yeah Foreigners tend to complain about dutch bluntness but its not meant in a rude way...its just honest and relaxed. We don't sugar coat things. 😁
Gary Daniel Just cause a street has a couple of brothels doesn't make that the defining part of that street. Try visiting The Netherlands then you'd know the drugs and prostitution stereotypes are pure bullshit. But they tend to be all closed minded countries can focus on and all tourists do when they come here (yet the locals don't).
Enkhuizen (a big place in VOC history) has street names like 'Hoerenjacht' (hooker hunt) Olifantensteiger (Elephant pier) Vette Knol (fat horse) and many, many more, I could not help but feed your imagination.
Hoerenjacht (whore hunt) is an actual street name in Enkhuizen, I could not help but feed your imagination Gary. Enkhuizen has quite af few remarkable street names dating from the VOC age (Enkhuizen was a major city for the organisation) a few of my favorites (beside Hoerenjacht) are Olifantsteiger (elephant jetty) Vette Knol (Fat Horse) and Kreupeltje (little crippled) this street led to the shelter for the sick and crippled.
You are the reason I got a 5 on my AP euro exam and I was hopeful that your videos would help me with APUSH but whenever I watch videos now I can't pay attention because the entire time I'm thinking about how much you seem to respect Donald Trump. It honestly makes me feel like I'm being poisoned by listening to you if you are a trump supporter, as your videos seem to suggest.
No we (the dutch) traded it with England for Suriname and the Antilles. Also we were an force as powerful as England at the time and our fleet was bigger than the English and the France combined.
+R1KARMA you have clearly not doen your research in the 17th century we were one of the biggest powerhouses in the world and we traded America, we weren't kicked out of it. And WOII is a completely different time and we had a pretty weak army than, that's true but that has nothing to do with all of this.
+Gijs Brans NO NO NO AND NO you did not trade you was FORCED OUT OF NORTH AMERICA THATS HISTORY a dutch boy telling me a about history whats your source??
+Gijs Brans i think ww2 is very relevant you may not assume that' but then most Dutch live in shame of ww2 in subject this propaganda is dutch ASSUMING a claim on the US
+svwalagoas alagoas The English word "Dutch" is derived from the Middle Dutch word "duutsch". We are not Duutsch... we are Nederlands diverent language..
Hallo, Nederlander! I had the pleasure of spending the month of July in Nederland. I know much more now than I did when I made this video. Dankjewel for watching! And watch for my lectures Willem van Oranje on the Dutch Republic soon.
LOL I had to google translate that although I could read a bit of it. It was AMAZING! If I were able to get a job there, I would move there for a few years in a heartbeat. Why Nederland? I got into a summer program for teachers and that's where it happened to be. And I fell in love with the place!
Yeah I have a problem with this Your information and a star is actually all wrong You should have done a better research job New Netherlands was not from New York City to New Jersey it was from Albany to the Delaware basin
