A brief history on Dutch influence on America

[Figment]

Let's see. Lately I've been seeing a lot of ignorance from Americans regarding the "outside world", "foreigners" and especially done in a rather denegrating tone. That includes my people, the Dutch. Who are actually at the very core of the establishment of America, including its core principles and values.

It may be hard to believe for the anglo-centric worldview of the majority of Americans (gee, wonder why that is after a prolonged anglosaxon rule).

But let's look at the influence of the dutch on US society, past and present.


Let's start with the colonies. New Netherlands was a dutch colony that comprised the area today known as New York and surrounding states (yes, states).



I'll just quote thise from the Wiki

Legacy

The original settlement has grown into the largest metropolis in North America
In addition to founding the largest metropolis on the North American continent, New Netherland has left a profoundly enduring legacy on both American cultural and political life, "a secular broadmindedness and mercantile pragmatism",[9] greatly influenced by social and political climate in the Dutch Republic at the time as well as by the character of those who immigrated to it.[48] It was during the early British colonial period that the New Netherlanders actually developed the land and society that would have an enduring impact on the Capital District, the Hudson Valley, North Jersey, western Long Island, New York City, and ultimately the United States.[9]

Political culture

Manifested, and occasionally embraced, as multiculturalism in late twentieth-century United States, the concept of tolerance was the mainstay of province's mother country. The Dutch Republic was a haven for many religious and intellectual refugees fleeing oppression as well as home to the world's major ports in the newly developing global economy. Concepts of religious freedom and free-trade (including a stock market) were Netherlands imports. In 1682, the visiting Virginian William Byrd commented about New Amsterdam that "they have as many sects of religion there as at Amsterdam".

The Dutch Republic was one of the first nation-states of Europe where citizenship and civil liberties were extended to large segments of the population. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces, though that influence was more as an example of things to avoid than of things to imitate.[49] In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces from the Spanish throne, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence[50] though concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent. John Adams went so far as to say that “the origins of the two Republics are so much alike that the history of one seems but a transcript from that of the other.”[51] The Articles of Capitulation (outlining the terms of transfer to the English) in 1664,[46] provided for the right to worship as one wished, and were incorporated into subsequent city, state, and national constitutions in the USA, and are the legal and cultural code that lies at the root of the New York Tri-State traditions.

Many prominent US citizens are Dutch American directly descended from the Dutch families of New Netherland.[52] The Roosevelt family, which produced two Presidents, are descended from Claes van Roosevelt, who emigrated around 1650.[53] The Van Buren family of President Martin Van Buren also originated in New Netherland.[3]

The Prince's Flag
Lore

The colors of the flag of New York City, of Albany and of Nassau County are those of the old Dutch flag. The blue, white and orange are also seen in materials from New York's two World's Fairs and the uniforms of the New York Mets baseball club, New York Knicks basketball club, and New York Islanders hockey club. Hofstra University, founded in 1935, takes its flag from the original.

The seven arrows in the lion's left claw in the Republic's coat of arms, representing the seven provinces, was a precedent for the thirteen arrows in the eagle's left claw in the Great Seal of the United States.[54]

Any review of the legacy of New Netherland is complicated by the enormous impact of Washington Irving’s satirical A History of New York and its famous fictional author Diedrich Knickerbocker. Irving’s romantic vision of an enlightened, languid Dutch yeomanry dominated the popular imagination about the colony since its publication in 1809.[55] To this day, many mistakenly believe that Irving’s two most famous short stories "Rip Van Winkle" and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" are based on actual folk tales of Dutch peasants in the Hudson Valley.[citation needed]

The tradition of Santa Claus is thought to have developed from a (gift-giving) celebration of the feast of Saint Nicholas on December 6 each year by the settlers of New Netherland.[17][56] The Dutch Sinterklaas was Americanized into "Santa Claus", a name first used in the American press in 1773,[57] when, in the early days of the revolt, Nicholas was used as a symbol of New York's non-British past.[56] However, many of the "traditions" of Santa Claus may have simply been invented by Irving in his 1809 Knickerbocker's History of New York from The Beginning of the World To the End of The Dutch Dynasty.[56]

Pinkster, the Dutch celebration of Spring is still celebrated in the Hudson Valley.

Language

Pidgin Delaware developed early in the province as a vehicular language to expedite trade. A dialect known as Jersey Dutch was spoken in and around rural Bergen and Passaic counties in New Jersey until the early 20th century.[58] Mohawk Dutch, spoken around Albany, is also now extinct.[59]


"Main Street" for the province, the Noort Rivier, was one of the three main rivers in New Nederland. In maritime usage, North River is still the name for that part of the Hudson between Hudson County and Manhattan.
Many words of Dutch origin came into American vernacular directly from New Netherland. For example, the quintessential American word Yankee may be a corruption of a Dutch name, Jan Kees. [nb 2][60] Knickerbocker, originally a surname, has been used to describe a number of things, including breeches, glasses, and a basketball team. Cookie is from the Dutch word koekje or (informally) koekie. Boss, from baas, evolved in New Netherland to the usage known today.

Another interesting article can be found here:
http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=212


Alright, so basically, the Netherlands have largely been responsible if not a model for American core principles and concepts of freedoms: such as freedom of speech, freedom of suffrage, freedom of press and freedom of religion.

Even significant influences on law, like the concept of district attorney. Not to mention capitalism in the form of free trade, again a dutch 'invention': the first stock company in the world was formed in the Netherlands, called the VOC.

Some more reading: http://roger-saunders.suite101.com/t...fluence-a35630

Contrasting quite starkly with people like Malorn, who think it is inconceivable for a foreigner to 'understand' these principles. Hey we just invented each and every one of them, but what do we know? Everything is invented by Americans, right? Well no. You were late to the party and simply poorly informed by your patriotic and nationalist education system. All your major advancements regarding civil rights were and are copies of Dutch advancements.

And you're actually still lagging behind. >__>

Constitutional rights

The first chapter of the Dutch constitution codifies the rights of all inhabitants of the Netherlands. These are both negative and positive rights as well as democratic rights. This includes a ban on discrimination (the first article of the Netherlands), the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly and the right to privacy. These are limitations on government, which citizens can enforce these classical civil rights directly at the judge. Additionally there are social rights such as the right to housing, social security, health care, education and employment. These are duties of the government towards its citizens, but these cannot be enforced by a judge. Democratic rights include the passive and active right to vote. The Netherlands has banned capital punishment during peace time and war time. The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is responsible for the constitution.

The Netherlands is signatory to all relevant international human rights instruments such as European Convention on Human Rights, Rome Statute (for the International Criminal Court) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, European Convention on Torture and the European Social Charter.

Note that the US is not signatory to all (which for the European ones is logical), but not even to all the non-European ones and still torture exists in places like Guantanamo Bay. Human rights are only conveniencies to the USA government, where many other governments have moved on.

In fact, the US constitution was largely based on the Dutch constitution. And the declaration of abjuration, or our declaration of independence from the Spanish, is also used as a template.

Gee. How about that?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces.[4] In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence,[5] though concrete evidence that the former directly influenced the latter is absent.

3) The abovementioned perception of the Union of Utrecht can also be considered as the model for the foundation of the United States of America. The United States of America did however perceive that a strong executive was needed in such a confederacy.

But let's continue:

During the American war of Independence the Dutch were active allies of the American rebels. From the island of Sint Eustatius they gave the Thirteen colonies one of the few opportunities to acquire arms. In 1778, British Lord Stormont claimed in parliament that "if Sint Eustatius had sunk into the sea three years before, the United Kingdom would already have dealt with George Washington".

The Dutch were the first to salute the flag, and therefore the first to acknowledge the independence of, the United States on 16 November 1776.

The Louisiana Purchase, also known as the "Great Land Acquisition", of 1803, is often seen as one of the most important events in American history after the Declaration of Independence. At the time it had a total cost of $15.000.000,- and it was financed in three ways. First of all by a down payment of $3.000.000,- in gold by the US government, and then two loans, one by the London-based Barings Bank, and one by the Amsterdam based Hope Bank. The original receipt still exists and is currently property of the Dutch ING Group, which has its headquarters in Amsterdam.

Of equal importance to America’s destiny was the granting of four major loans by the Netherlands from 1782-1788, which probably saved our young nation from bankruptcy and possible economic collapse at the end of the war.

So you kinda desperately needed us for forming your nation and maintaining it on multiple occassions, but who needs us Dutch for anything, right? You may want to read the entire historical article there: http://www.11thpa.org/dutch-arms.html

The Netherlands hosts several international human rights institutions. The Hague is home to the International Criminal Court, the Yugoslavia Tribunal, the International Court of Justice, Rwanda Tribunal.

The reason the International Criminal Court (ICC) is housed in The Hague, governmental seat of the Netherlands, is exactly because of this history. A court of international law in the interest of human rights, which is may I remind you, not ratified by the USA. Quite the opposite, as mentioned earlier, the USA deemed itself qualified to enact a law that makes it "legal" to potentially invade the Netherlands and any other country, to spring the detention of US citizens accused of war crimes.

Many internationaly important tribunals, for instance regarding the Lockerbie disaster, were also performed in the Netherlands.


If we continue to look at modern day dutch influence on human rights, you will note that "new" freedoms, such as gay marriage (Amsterdam is considered the gay capital of the world in that respect), abortion (female rights), euthanasia (right to end ones own life under certain medical conditions), legalised soft drugs and prostitution (as a means to control and reduce related crime) and quite a few other "controversial" topics and ideas spring forth from the Netherlands.

Also, if we look at the foreign investors in America, the second largest European investor (after the UK), is the Netherlands. The investment is as large as the investments of 3/4s of all Asian investments combined.

Furthermore, the human rights and eco-movements are also quite strong in the Netherlands. Eco organisations such as Greenpeace and Shepard have their HQ in the Netherlands for good reason.



So yeah. The idea is that without the Netherlands, the Americas past and present, its concepts, vision and other liberty related things would have looked entirely different. And I mean entirely different. Probably with a certain British queen as your head of state. Quite likely half your country would still speak Spanish or French, since you'd have had to respect Louisianna's borders (or go to war with France) without our money. Which also means you could not have attacked Mexico by land directly and steal your entire western half of the US.



Either way, we butt-in on your political issues whenever the hell we like, for clearly it's in your best interest. Whether you like it or not. :P Besides, freedom of speech also goes for foreigners!

[Baneblade]

Some of us know this stuff, we just think your 'Dutch Pride' is misplaced and being displayed on topics that have negative zero to do with you or where you come from.

And beyond that, the historical significance of the Dutch in America don't really support the things you've been saying about how the land of Danes is superior to the US.

Every European country and their protectorate was in America when it was the cool place to throw money and people.

[Hamma]

Pot, Kettle.

[Figment]

Sobekeus, the problem is 1. that it's only some of you (I'd say 1 in 15). This may surprise some Americans (it actually would, sadly), but politics, different policies and philosophy are a worldwide thing. American domestic issues are simply examples of implementation of one philosophy, approach or doctrine compared to others and what's so typical is that Americans tend to dismiss others without knowing why.

It's like people dismissing a good tv-show with ace acting, simply because it's not in english and therefore "cannot be quality". The utter retardness of the argument is what brings people like me, Canadians and others to indicate they're not backwards and typically even more advanced in certain areas.

So this thread is not about 'Dutch Pride', I understand how it may seem that way, but it's more a historical lecture to, well, teach the ignorant a lesson.

I simply take issue with the rose teinted goggles that certain people use here. These people claimed on several occassions things about foreigners and countries that are simply not true.


For instance, when we look at wealth, Malorn will tell you the US is the wealthiest nation in the world. On a nominal GDP level, it's right behind the EU indeed, but the EU is not a country, so that's not entirely fair. So yes, the US is the biggest consumer economy in the world on a country by country basis. That doesn't make it the wealthiest though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

For on a per capita level, it's behind much smaller nations (only 15th), where a lot of European countries are well, well ahead of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

The same is true for a lot of other statistics that people like Malorn do not wish to see, since it does not conform with their worldview that the USA is top at everything.

Saying the Netherlands is wealthier for instance is not pride, this is fact. In fact, Canada is wealthier. ZOMGNOES.

Yes, Denmark > USA in a lot of things. Is that "Dutch Pride"? Is it "Dutch Pride" to look at Luxembourg, a completely different country (as is Denmark btw) and objectively state it rates better than the USA in a lot of fundamental and important areas? (Energy, housing, wealth, security, etc). The only ones basing their argument on pride in these forums, are very specific Americans who claim that any disagreeing has to be based in jealosy. How can we be jealous on a nation that has less than we have and worse happiness ratings, worse crime ratings, etc? The argument is simply dumb and trolling.

If an American wants to compare country-peens, he's in for a rough ride. If an American wants to claim that more social countries do not use or understand capitalism, do not know what freedoms are or makes other stupid remarks, this person is simply an ignorant fool.

This thread is aimed at putting these specific Americans in their place, when they want to argue another nation is irrelevant. Even a country such as the Netherlands over the past 6 centuries has made a HUGE impact and difference in the world.

If you want, I could make a similar thread or post about the French influence (another often ridiculed country) and would gladly do so. Nothing to do with pride, everything to do with correcting false claims.

Originally Posted by Hamma

Pot, Kettle.

Not really, I do not tell people based on geography to butt out of politics or philosophical debate on the internet, just because they monopolise the issue by presuming it's a national topic.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Sobekeus, the problem is 1. that it's only some of you (I'd say 1 in 15). This may surprise some Americans (it actually would, sadly), but politics, different policies and philosophy are a worldwide thing. American domestic issues are simply examples of implementation of one philosophy, approach or doctrine compared to others and what's so typical is that Americans tend to dismiss others without knowing why.

True, to a point. However that are certain specific things that are not even on the table for discussion as far as most of us are concerned... such as private gun ownership. A disarmed society is a powerless society. It has been proven throughout history too many times to be refuted.

It's like people dismissing a good tv-show with ace acting, simply because it's not in english and therefore "cannot be quality". The utter retardness of the argument is what brings people like me, Canadians and others to indicate they're not backwards and typically even more advanced in certain areas.

Some of my favorite TV shows and movies were never made or even dubbed in English, but I understand your point. I do think your example is flawed to a point, since entertainment is invariably designed to entertain a specific target audience and not the entire world. It is a rare thing for a movie and even rarer a TV show to transcend that.

So this thread is not about 'Dutch Pride', I understand how it may seem that way, but it's more a historical lecture to, well, teach the ignorant a lesson.

But the entire exercise is pointless. It won't educate anyone and it just serves as a way for people to write your opinions off. I've been in your position before, on different topics for different reasons, and it is invariably a waste of time. All you can do is stick to your guns and eventually command respect for it.

I simply take issue with the rose teinted goggles that certain people use here. These people claimed on several occassions things about foreigners and countries that are simply not true.

Well the truth is relative. You can't change that. Refute, Debate, and Accept the result. Ignorance is a voluntary thing, you can't force people to learn something new, especially if it changes their world view.

For instance, when we look at wealth, Malorn will tell you the US is the wealthiest nation in the world. On a nominal GDP level, it's right behind the EU indeed, but the EU is not a country, so that's not entirely fair. So yes, the US is the biggest consumer economy in the world on a country by country basis. That doesn't make it the wealthiest though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

I would say that the US is one of the poorest countries in the world to be honest. People get stuck on how much we make, but forget that the vast majority of American buying power is debt based. I've met homeless people with a higher net worth than myself even though I have a car and a home.

For on a per capita level, it's behind much smaller nations (only 15th), where a lot of European countries are well, well ahead of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

Indeed. However, we do have a lot of new population being included in that statistic that shouldn't be.

The same is true for a lot of other statistics that people like Malorn do not wish to see, since it does not conform with their worldview that the USA is top at everything.

When it comes to literally, we are on top. But our position is precarious and in the next decade or two can easily completely reverse.

Saying the Netherlands is wealthier for instance is not pride, this is fact. In fact, Canada is wealthier. ZOMGNOES.

And wealth on paper is different than wealth in fact. Taxes and class division affect a lot of things.

Yes, Denmark > USA in a lot of things. Is that "Dutch Pride"? Is it "Dutch Pride" to look at Luxembourg, a completely different country (as is Denmark btw) and objectively state it rates better than the USA in a lot of fundamental and important areas? (Energy, housing, wealth, security, etc). The only ones basing their argument on pride in these forums, are very specific Americans who claim that any disagreeing has to be based in jealosy. How can we be jealous on a nation that has less than we have and worse happiness ratings, worse crime ratings, etc? The argument is simply dumb and trolling.

I for one am well aware of the US's position in the world stage, which is why I'm for Ron Paul. The current course will just drive us into the dirt.

If an American wants to compare country-peens, he's in for a rough ride. If an American wants to claim that more social countries do not use or understand capitalism, do not know what freedoms are or makes other stupid remarks, this person is simply an ignorant fool.

It's about priorities. To many (most) Americans, freedom is the paramount quality. We would rather be disadvantaged than subservient. And we paint our opinions based on that aspect: How much freedom will it cost me?

This thread is aimed at putting these specific Americans in their place, when they want to argue another nation is irrelevant. Even a country such as the Netherlands over the past 6 centuries has made a HUGE impact and difference in the world.

It won't work, for exactly the same reason you want to do it.

If you want, I could make a similar thread or post about the French influence (another often ridiculed country) and would gladly do so. Nothing to do with pride, everything to do with correcting false claims.

Americans aren't the only nation to stereotype on false assumptions, it's a world wide sport.

Not really, I do not tell people based on geography to butt out of politics or philosophical debate on the internet, just because they monopolise the issue by presuming it's a national topic.

Americans are territorial, and I mean very territorial. How else could something like Castle Doctrine exist and actually be spreading? So when an 'outsider' comes in and starts discussing American social and political issues, we tend to unite in the 'get lost' angle. It isn't because we don't think you have something to add, it is because we tend to believe we already know what you will say, why you will say it, and what will happen when you do. Americans are used to defending the things we consider basic freedoms from non Americans on the internet. So we react negatively by instinct. It's a learned behaviour.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Figment

Let's see. Lately I've been seeing a lot of ignorance from Americans regarding the "outside world", "foreigners" and especially done in a rather denegrating tone. That includes my people, the Dutch. Who are actually at the very core of the establishment of America, including its core principles and values.

It may be hard to believe for the anglo-centric worldview of the majority of Americans (gee, wonder why that is after a prolonged anglosaxon rule).

But let's look at the influence of the dutch on US society, past and present.


Let's start with the colonies. New Netherlands was a dutch colony that comprised the area today known as New York and surrounding states (yes, states).



I'll just quote thise from the Wiki



Another interesting article can be found here:
http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=212


Alright, so basically, the Netherlands have largely been responsible if not a model for American core principles and concepts of freedoms: such as freedom of speech, freedom of suffrage, freedom of press and freedom of religion.

Even significant influences on law, like the concept of district attorney. Not to mention capitalism in the form of free trade, again a dutch 'invention': the first stock company in the world was formed in the Netherlands, called the VOC.

Some more reading: http://roger-saunders.suite101.com/t...fluence-a35630

Contrasting quite starkly with people like Malorn, who think it is inconceivable for a foreigner to 'understand' these principles. Hey we just invented each and every one of them, but what do we know? Everything is invented by Americans, right? Well no. You were late to the party and simply poorly informed by your patriotic and nationalist education system. All your major advancements regarding civil rights were and are copies of Dutch advancements.

And you're actually still lagging behind. >__>



Note that the US is not signatory to all (which for the European ones is logical), but not even to all the non-European ones and still torture exists in places like Guantanamo Bay. Human rights are only conveniencies to the USA government, where many other governments have moved on.

In fact, the US constitution was largely based on the Dutch constitution. And the declaration of abjuration, or our declaration of independence from the Spanish, is also used as a template.

Gee. How about that?





But let's continue:





So you kinda desperately needed us for forming your nation and maintaining it on multiple occassions, but who needs us Dutch for anything, right? You may want to read the entire historical article there: http://www.11thpa.org/dutch-arms.html



The reason the International Criminal Court (ICC) is housed in The Hague, governmental seat of the Netherlands, is exactly because of this history. A court of international law in the interest of human rights, which is may I remind you, not ratified by the USA. Quite the opposite, as mentioned earlier, the USA deemed itself qualified to enact a law that makes it "legal" to potentially invade the Netherlands and any other country, to spring the detention of US citizens accused of war crimes.

Many internationaly important tribunals, for instance regarding the Lockerbie disaster, were also performed in the Netherlands.


If we continue to look at modern day dutch influence on human rights, you will note that "new" freedoms, such as gay marriage (Amsterdam is considered the gay capital of the world in that respect), abortion (female rights), euthanasia (right to end ones own life under certain medical conditions), legalised soft drugs and prostitution (as a means to control and reduce related crime) and quite a few other "controversial" topics and ideas spring forth from the Netherlands.

Also, if we look at the foreign investors in America, the second largest European investor (after the UK), is the Netherlands. The investment is as large as the investments of 3/4s of all Asian investments combined.

Furthermore, the human rights and eco-movements are also quite strong in the Netherlands. Eco organisations such as Greenpeace and Shepard have their HQ in the Netherlands for good reason.



So yeah. The idea is that without the Netherlands, the Americas past and present, its concepts, vision and other liberty related things would have looked entirely different. And I mean entirely different. Probably with a certain British queen as your head of state. Quite likely half your country would still speak Spanish or French, since you'd have had to respect Louisianna's borders (or go to war with France) without our money. Which also means you could not have attacked Mexico by land directly and steal your entire western half of the US.



Either way, we butt-in on your political issues whenever the hell we like, for clearly it's in your best interest. Whether you like it or not. :P Besides, freedom of speech also goes for foreigners!

tl;dr

Listen I understand your need to be heard, but every other comment I see from you Figment goes a little like this:

"Ha Ha your opinion is stupid because you're American. How do I know? I'm Dutch that's how...and our country is superior to yours in every way. Don't believe me? Here's a video of random Americans answering questions from a Canadian guy and getting every one of them wrong! ((Through the power of editing of course)) That proves that you are ALL uneducated shitbags and I'm going to ignore the fact that this kind of shit can happen in any country...because most of the civilian populace of any given country is ignorant of basic facts outside of their own little country. Oh yeah, did I mention I was dutch and superior to you? Now, let me tell you why your country is bad...I'm going to link documentation from different websites showing you why America sucks, and then sit back and smugly wait for you to defend yourself while I laugh at your silly, stupid, backwards American mentality."

And you call Americans assholes Figment.

Stop with the bricks of text and the smugness...you might get somewhere.

Also, this thread is completely unnecessary. This is a political debate forum, not Figment's classroom on why the Dutch are superior.

[Figment]

I can agree with a lot of that and did wonder if the effect I was aiming for would be reached regardless. It's however quite frustrating to debate with people who basically state your nation cannot exist, even if it has existed far longer and gone through many more cycles and stages than the USA.

A disarmed society is a powerless society. It has been proven throughout history too many times to be refuted.

This though I have to completely and utterly disagree with. Our society is disarmed, but we are in full control, I'd even say far more than you.


In another topic, Wildguns stated that Luxembourg may be better in a lot of things, but that they still succombed to Germany in WWII, which he claimed would not have happened had the male, able bodied portion taken up arms as a militia. Apparently he doesn't even realise with just how much armour, aircraft and troops the Germans were and that Luxembourg only had a few thousand able bodied people. Did the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and many other nations fall in war fast to the Germans? Yes, because the defensive strategy was based on WWI combat and several lines of heavy fortress and in our case, water defenses and believing in neutrality (which we were, we did not intend to pick sides). The allied nation did not expect violation of neutral nation's sovereignty, the concept of paratroopers, the sheer speed at which the war was waged logistically and lastly the concept of using civilians as hostage by bombing entire residential areas from the air was unprecedented. A prolonged fight would have done nothing but get more civilians killed and would have meant we'd never have a chance to put up any resistance.

The argument becomes even dumber when you consider that the Soviet Union lost millions and millions of troops to the Germans. So to make the assertion that a dutch, Belgian, Luxembourgian or Polish militia could have fought German occupation is simply stupid, disrespectful and naive and lacks any sort of reality checks. There's nothing militias could have done anything about fighting that sort of tyranny, it'd just have gotten more people killed.


Instead, connecting economies and establishing wealth, signing treaties, pacts and in general use words, backed up by standing armies within alliances, as well as a properly setup democracy are the true strengths of a free nation. Militias are an obsolete idea and tbh have been so since the reforms of the late Roman Republic.

Guns among civilians have absolutely no impact on the protection of your other freedoms. IMO it only makes you more paranoid of other people because you feel you apparently have to protect yourself (and your freedoms) physically from others. In a nation where you feel so threatened you need to physically defend yourself, how can you trully claim to feel free?

I don't think a lot of Americans can envision a populace without guns, because they've only known a populace with guns. Yet all of Europe can and we exist and are as free if not more free than Americans. Just because America calls itself the land of the free, doesn't mean that all other populaces are oppressed. That's merely propaganda too many US citizens believe.

Besides, what worked better in establishing and protecting freedoms, Martin Luther King, or the Black Panthers? Ghandi or Bin Laden? Do you see the difference between political developments in Birma and Syria?

Have the Palestinians come closer to peace and an own nation under Arafat's PLO with weapons and Hamas, or under the PLO that tries to negotiate peacefully with Israel over independence? In fact, since Israel's citizens are, have been or will all be part of the Israeli army/militia, they are all considered viable targets by terrorists. Children included.

One of the best examples is Nelson Mandela. His group and he himself started by taking up weapons and ended up achieving their goals through peace.

Another example is the Dalaii Llama for Tibet. You honestly think that if the Tibetans had been armed, they'd been able to fight millions and millions of Chinese occupational forces and immigrants?

Plus the whole militia notion forgets that for every person that wants to fight over a certain "right" there may be one that disagrees. That just leads to Civil War. Capital letters intended. Look at Afghanistan. The "militias" of the Mujahadeen with a lot of help from the CIA defeated the Soviets, only to start fighting each other. In Lybia and other tribal nations (Yemen for instance) the same thing can still easily happen and civil war can erupt. In many African nations, militias have been oppressing the populace for years. The Farc in Columbia is another example of a militia that is a danger to the populace and became a criminal movement.

Remember that any action creates a reaction. Violent actions tend to cause violent reactions and a stronger backlash.



And then just look at how poor the militias of the US have fared in combat throughout history while fighting standing armies of other nations.


No, a disarmed society is not powerless. Power is not measured in firepower and round house kicks, even if Steven Seagal and Chuck Norris would have you believe so.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

tl;dr

Listen I understand your need to be heard, but every other comment I see from you Figment goes a little like this:

"Ha Ha your opinion is stupid because you're American. How do I know? I'm Dutch that's how...and our country is superior to yours in every way. Don't believe me? Here's a video of random Americans answering questions from a Canadian guy and getting every one of them wrong! ((Through the power of editing of course)) That proves that you are ALL uneducated shitbags and I'm going to ignore the fact that this kind of shit can happen in any country...because most of the civilian populace of any given country is ignorant of basic facts outside of their own little country. Oh yeah, did I mention I was dutch and superior to you? Now, let me tell you why your country is bad...I'm going to link documentation from different websites showing you why America sucks, and then sit back and smugly wait for you to defend yourself while I laugh at your silly, stupid, backwards American mentality."

Sigh. Not true, not at all.

1. I never say someone is stupid based on nationality. Never. I will make general remarks about US systems and certain groups (Tea Party crowd in particular) and other factions within for instance the Reps. Not the populace as a whole.

2. Our country IS simply superior in a lot of ways and other countries are superior to us in the same or other ways as well. I say this whenever you or Malorn or whoever else claims the US has the best ever ratings or statistics or sentiment or whatever other false, propaganda claim. That you can't interpret this in any other way than smugness is probably because that's how you would use such an argument.

You can admit the US simply has a lot of things to improve on compared to other nations instead of being naive and claiming it's all other people's fault if something goes wrong or if a certain part of the populace is to blame for dragging your statistics down (and then somehow saying these don't count and it's not fair to count them, while they do because they're part of your domestic situation). It's not that hard.

3. The video was from CNN. The OTHER SURVEYS AND POLLS I refered to were conducted by the National Geographic. I don't base my opinion on ONE video. I explicitly gave you an example. Read the damn texts, the results of the survey regarding foreign awareness, care and knowledge were simply utter crap for the fast majority of your populace. That means your education system fails! That is a fact you'll have to live with.

This is not the case for the MAJORITY of the population in every other nation. Certainly not for Europeans or Canadians. Why? Because they all have far more interest in the outside world and the fast majority of our history classes are not focused on our own nation. The fast majority of news broadcasted on any television net is about foreign affairs, which cannot be said for US television networks.

4. Using sources and references in a debate is a courtesy, because you can verify my claims and gives you a chance to refute them.

You'd rather I just troll you without sources and unfounded opinion? Is that because then you can say "well hey, I can ignore that because you don't provide sources so you probably make that up".

And you call Americans assholes Figment.

No, I do not. Never have. Never will. You and Malorn read far too much in what I say all the time and continuously draw conclusions and distort words because that's what you two want me to say so you can ignore me.

Stop with the bricks of text and the smugness...you might get somewhere.

Sorry, but attentionspan is a skill. If you don't have it, that's not my problem, that's yours. Besides, I'm being straightforward and sarcastic, not simply smug. Am I smug at times? Yes. And? Doesn't make me wrong. I don't pretend to have all the answers all the time, however, when someone is so stupid to claim there are no viable political alternatives to something, this person deserves a smug answer and being told he's stupid while being pressed nose first in the facts.

Also, this thread is completely unnecessary. This is a political debate forum, not Figment's classroom on why the Dutch are superior.

Ehr... I believe I touched upon quite a few bits of politics in the original post and where they are BASED UPON. Nowhere did I claim superiority.

[Figment]

PS: This topic wouldn't exist, nor would I bring up the Dutch situation so often if the US system would not be continuously discussed as being some sort of most interesting, stand alone, only possible option, while it is not. Other nations exist and are thriving, often on a per capita better than the general populace of the US.

If it is smug to bring up my own nation's system, just consider for a second what it is like to continuously only get to discuss the American ones and seeing it appraised as the "bestest and most original thing evah", quite simply because you are not able, nor willing to talk about or consider other options as viable while not even knowing the history of the freedoms you so much care about.

I'd be quite content discussing the Italian systems (or lack thereof) for a change, but it'd probably exclude you from the conversation. In this case though, dutch history - of which I know more than you, that's a given - required some presentation, because it was being dismissed as irrelevant to the world. By you Wildguns, remember? You attacked my geographic location, the supposed (non-)importance of my nation based on ignorance and me specifically. And got a reaction. And now you tell me I'm continuously being smug about being dutch? Remember that you had to explicitly ASK where I was from? Kinda indicates that I did not rub it in your faces, doesn't it? Afterwards yes, I've given lots of examples because the situation called for it (claims that nowhere else things were better). In fact, I've used a lot of NON-DUTCH examples, because those are actually sometimes better examples. Is that "Dutch Pride" and smugness?

No. You simply never in your life talked so much about another country. You probably simply got an overload.

The history of these freedoms is predominantly French revolutionary, British and quite substantially Dutch as well, all mixed together into an American bag. And that's fine, but appreciate that instead of saying us "non-Americans have no idea of what freedoms are".

Is that being smug? Or is it smug to ignore history and actual facts because one assumes one's nation is bestestestest anyway, regardless of what facts say? I'm quite aware of any shortcomings the Netherlands have, it's however not in the areas contested on these forums so far.

This all doesn't constitute hate. It constitutes irritation with ignorance. Malorn, you and some others - as a lot of Southerners tend to do - have this attitude "you're not with me, then you're against me".

What's up with that?

[CutterJohn]

The dutch are cool. We've been BFFs since before BFFs existed.

Also, many of my countrymen are quite ignorant and far to prideful about things they had no part in accomplishing. Hell most of my coworkers were confused when they found US coins commemorating Guam and Puerto Rico.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Did you post that for our benefit or to convince yourself that your country is relevant?

Trolls trolls trolls trolls because that's how Malorn rolls.

EDIT: Were you trying to prove my point btw? If so, thanks.

[Red Beard]

This thread is aimed at putting these specific Americans in their place, when they want to argue another nation is irrelevant.

I can identify with your frustration when getting disrespected by someone for a stupid reason. I would say that it's unlikely that arrogant people are going to be willing to listen to you in any case. I do think that you run the risk of alienating other people from seeing your perspective however if you're not careful to qualify exactly who your audience is; especially when the majority of the people on this site are Americans.

I am a Canadian myself; loong ago (around the time of the revolution) my family was American, and before that they were British. As such, I can also identify with your desire to affect positive change on a people (for the time being anyways) have a lot on influence on world events. For example I'm against the foreign occupations, monetary policies and the indefinite detentions and torture.

Having said that, from my limited experience, I find most regulars on this site are intelligent, civil and willing to listen if you aren't indiscriminately trying people's patience. In my experience, finding and focusing on the people that are willing to reason and listen is a lot more conducive to change (and fulfilling), than worrying about what trolls think.

Peace

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The only thing I like about the Netherlands other than its appreciation for self-indulgence is the corporate tax rate of 20-25%.

America has the lowest corporate tax rate in the world after all of the loop holes. In fact, America's corporate tax has so many holes, some companies can even get negative tax rates.