While the rest of Europe was fighting dramatic and chaotic wars of religion, the Dutch were creating a super-economy (they did volume business and price cutting better than Amazon.com). The pictures may make them look boring (a sea of black and white clothes and big hats and plain houses), and I meant that to provoke you. They are definitely NOT BORING. They were politically organized as a republic; they gave, as Professor Weber says, freedom and tolerance to those living in the Dutch Republic. They were smart business men, they were rational, religiously tolerant, and they were savvy internationally. Nor did they go down without a fight. After all, they fought off Phillip II by flooding their own cities, remember. It took 100 years of English and French attacks to shake their trade dominance. They allied with whomever was helpful to create an equilibrium (a balance of power). They went to war with England, turned around and allied with them against France, and then thought even more creatively and allied with a collection of smaller states such as Denmark, Brandenburg, and the Habsburgs (yes, their oldest enemy Spain). Inconceivable! And by the end of class on Wednesday/Thursday, their stadholder William of Orange, will become king of England.
Seeing is believing. Check out these visual representations of the effect of English and French attacks on the Dutch economy between 1650 and 1750:
Notice the naval battles suggestive of a strategy of blockade above.
Lost over half of the sea trade in 50 years!
The Dutch had more ships, until the English take them.
Machiavellian alliances are afoot.
Here is the link of the short 18 minute clip from Ms. Gerst's class on the Dutch. http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=848 By the way, most argue that their "serious" character as a people was due to their Calvinist religion. Some even say that the reason they sought wealth, even while openly not showy or materialistic, was because wealth was EVIDENCE that they were predestined (the chosen).
If I may add, the Dutch could have also possessed a "serious" attitude because they needed to have a serious reputation to attract business. As John Keyner puts it, they had "forwardness to further all manner of trading," and this made them appear like active and reliable trade partners that other countries and kingdoms would be more willing to invest in. They resisted putting their wealth into aesthetic and decorative efforts so that they looked capable of handling money wisely without wasting it on frivolous things, so others believed that they were very good with managing their wealth and thought of them in high regard. This is Machiavellian in the sense that the Dutch needed to appear to have a good reputation in order to be regarded highly by others and to draw in people's interest, and this ties in with the aforementioned Machiavellian alliances with others in order to gain the advantage, which could have also added to their reputation because it made the Dutch seem willing to cooperate with other countries. Overall, the Dutch made themselves appear open to other people and interested in working with them, and this attitude, while interpreted as "serious," likely attracted other nations to engage in business with them, leading to more economic success, influence, and power for the Dutch.
ReplyDeleteJanine may certainly be onto to something here! Professor Amy Chua's account of the Dutch certainly doesn't give credence to the idea that the Dutch serious nature was religiously inspired. Indeed, she argues that they certainly loved big meals and beer to much to be expert in the art of self-denial. More likely, I'd argue that they were investing profits in future endeavors (capital investment) and defensive capacity. This is something for which we criticized the Spanish; they did nothing productive or useful with New World profits. The Dutch don't make that mistake in their "Golden Age."
ReplyDelete