Talk:History of the Netherlands: Difference between revisions
imported>Michel van der Hoek No edit summary |
imported>Richard Jensen (comments) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In the section on the early Kingdom of the Netherlands, statistics are quoted for the population. It is said that Protestants were only a quarter of the population, while Catholics dominated. Where do these statistics come from? This sounds a little surprising to me, considering that the much more highly industrialized Holland was relatively populous even in 1815, and this province had been thoroughly Protestant since the early 17th century. Were Catholics in all of the Netherlands (united with Belgium) really close to 75% of the total population? [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 09:22, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | In the section on the early Kingdom of the Netherlands, statistics are quoted for the population. It is said that Protestants were only a quarter of the population, while Catholics dominated. Where do these statistics come from? This sounds a little surprising to me, considering that the much more highly industrialized Holland was relatively populous even in 1815, and this province had been thoroughly Protestant since the early 17th century. Were Catholics in all of the Netherlands (united with Belgium) really close to 75% of the total population? [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 09:22, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
**Holland was over 1/3 Catholic. The statistics come from ''History of the Low Countries'' (1999) ed J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts. p 398 says Catholics were 35-40% of the 2 million population of Netherlands in 1855 (and I assume over 90% among the 3.5 million in Belgium) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:58, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
== Myth? == | == Myth? == | ||
The greater portion of my text about the earliest beginnings of the Netherlands (Franks, Frisians, Saxons), which I wrote for the [[Netherlands]] article, has been included here under the title "Myth" and is followed by the verbatim abstract of Beyen's article (is this copyright infringement?). I do not think it is entirely correct to label the "Frisian, Franks, and Saxon" theory mere myth. First, and perhaps of less importance on Citizendium, I do not think Beyen's article (which I have read partly) is convincing on this point. More importantly, the article doesn't really address the origins of the Dutch people. Rather, it deals with the historiogaphical debate (i.e. What scholar or group held what view?) about the origins of the Dutch people. Incidentally, the article contains erroneous statements about the Dutch language (I'm a Germanic philologist, so I know a little about this) that also add little to the question whether Franks, Frisians, and Saxons really ever lived in the area what is now the Netherlands. From a genetic and linguistic point of view, there can be no doubt that Frisians, Franks, and Saxons did live in the Netherlands, though other influences (Danish Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Celts) can certainly be identified. I think it would be fairer if we simply nuance the statement about the origin of the Dutch people with phrases like "it is unclear but..." but do not label it "myth." [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 10:54, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | The greater portion of my text about the earliest beginnings of the Netherlands (Franks, Frisians, Saxons), which I wrote for the [[Netherlands]] article, has been included here under the title "Myth" and is followed by the verbatim abstract of Beyen's article (is this copyright infringement?). I do not think it is entirely correct to label the "Frisian, Franks, and Saxon" theory mere myth. First, and perhaps of less importance on Citizendium, I do not think Beyen's article (which I have read partly) is convincing on this point. More importantly, the article doesn't really address the origins of the Dutch people. Rather, it deals with the historiogaphical debate (i.e. What scholar or group held what view?) about the origins of the Dutch people. Incidentally, the article contains erroneous statements about the Dutch language (I'm a Germanic philologist, so I know a little about this) that also add little to the question whether Franks, Frisians, and Saxons really ever lived in the area what is now the Netherlands. From a genetic and linguistic point of view, there can be no doubt that Frisians, Franks, and Saxons did live in the Netherlands, though other influences (Danish Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Celts) can certainly be identified. I think it would be fairer if we simply nuance the statement about the origin of the Dutch people with phrases like "it is unclear but..." but do not label it "myth." [[User:Michel van der Hoek|Michel van der Hoek]] 10:54, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
::CZ has to go with the latest published scholarship (in this case a major refereeed article in 2000) that says the three-tribes-theme was fundamentally questioned and slowly faded away. If there are alternative theories in recent refereed journals then they can be included as well.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:58, 30 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 13:58, 30 April 2008
Population Statistics
In the section on the early Kingdom of the Netherlands, statistics are quoted for the population. It is said that Protestants were only a quarter of the population, while Catholics dominated. Where do these statistics come from? This sounds a little surprising to me, considering that the much more highly industrialized Holland was relatively populous even in 1815, and this province had been thoroughly Protestant since the early 17th century. Were Catholics in all of the Netherlands (united with Belgium) really close to 75% of the total population? Michel van der Hoek 09:22, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
- Holland was over 1/3 Catholic. The statistics come from History of the Low Countries (1999) ed J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts. p 398 says Catholics were 35-40% of the 2 million population of Netherlands in 1855 (and I assume over 90% among the 3.5 million in Belgium) Richard Jensen 14:58, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
Myth?
The greater portion of my text about the earliest beginnings of the Netherlands (Franks, Frisians, Saxons), which I wrote for the Netherlands article, has been included here under the title "Myth" and is followed by the verbatim abstract of Beyen's article (is this copyright infringement?). I do not think it is entirely correct to label the "Frisian, Franks, and Saxon" theory mere myth. First, and perhaps of less importance on Citizendium, I do not think Beyen's article (which I have read partly) is convincing on this point. More importantly, the article doesn't really address the origins of the Dutch people. Rather, it deals with the historiogaphical debate (i.e. What scholar or group held what view?) about the origins of the Dutch people. Incidentally, the article contains erroneous statements about the Dutch language (I'm a Germanic philologist, so I know a little about this) that also add little to the question whether Franks, Frisians, and Saxons really ever lived in the area what is now the Netherlands. From a genetic and linguistic point of view, there can be no doubt that Frisians, Franks, and Saxons did live in the Netherlands, though other influences (Danish Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Celts) can certainly be identified. I think it would be fairer if we simply nuance the statement about the origin of the Dutch people with phrases like "it is unclear but..." but do not label it "myth." Michel van der Hoek 10:54, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
- CZ has to go with the latest published scholarship (in this case a major refereeed article in 2000) that says the three-tribes-theme was fundamentally questioned and slowly faded away. If there are alternative theories in recent refereed journals then they can be included as well.Richard Jensen 14:58, 30 April 2008 (CDT)