How New York Got Its Name

Previously, more than once, I have bemoaned the lack of familiarity most Americans have with colonial history. Sadly, I do not see that as likely to change in the foreseeable future given how the population is increasingly becoming less connected to the people who established the colonies which eventually came together into the country that exists today. This is unfortunate as, without the participating European colonial empires there would be no United States (nor any other country as exists today in the Americas) but even among those who are at least vaguely aware of the state of affairs prior to the independence of the “Thirteen Original Colonies”, fewer still are aware of just how many European colonial empires were involved in the settlement of North America. The Spanish, French, English and Russians all played a part as did still less remembered powers such as the Kingdom of Sweden (at the time Sweden and Finland) which established a North American colony in the reign of Queen Christina and, likewise, so did the Seven United Provinces of The Netherlands.

Dutch West Indies Company

Although mostly centered on what is today New York, the Dutch colony covered parts of what is today New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut and even small areas of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The Dutch got their start with the employment of Henry Hudson, an Englishman, by the Dutch East India Company to try to find the elusive northwest passage to Asia. In his famous ship the Half Moon, he explored much of the coast of northeast America, giving his name to a river and a large bay in Canada. He did not make it to Asia but he returned to Holland with glowing reports of land ripe for colonization. More expeditions followed to survey and chart the area in greater detail and to trade with the native population all of which were funded by the New Netherland Company. In 1621 the Dutch West India Company was granted a charter to gain for The Netherlands a piece of the lucrative fur trade in North America. It is also noteworthy (though often forgotten) that their charter forbid them to take possession of any land that was not legally purchased from the native inhabitants.

Peter Minuit

Today, this presents a problem to the egalitarian crowd as even many who know practically nothing about this period will remember that the Director of New Netherland colony, Peter Minuit, purchased Manhattan Island from the natives for 25 Dutch guilders worth of trade goods. Many, keeping in mind that today Manhattan is home to some of the most highly valued property on the planet, portray this as Minuit cheating the Indians out of a fortune in real estate with a chest full of trinkets. This, however, runs counter to the argument for egalitarianism since, if this was such a huge swindle and if all people are equal, the Indians should have known they were being cheated. One cannot, on the one hand, demand that everyone be treated equally and then, at the same time, demand that special allowance be given to the ignorant. The truth, however, is that the Indians were not so ignorant and the Dutch did not swindle them. Yes, the land is worth a huge fortune today but, at the time, it was empty wilderness, no different than the other vast tracts of empty wilderness that covered the continent. Land was something that seemed endlessly plentiful whereas the manufactured goods offered by the Dutch were items which the Indians did not have and could not make for themselves, thus each gave up something they had in abundance for something the other could not obtain on their own, the very definition of a successful business transaction.

New Amsterdam, capital of New Netherland, soon became a busy hub of trade, settlement and privateering. The Dutch brought in colonists from Europe and, in an act for which they have been condemned since, also brought in the first African slaves to North America. However, operations were still more expensive than the Dutch West India Company liked and they tried various methods to cut costs. In an act that should be considered an educational moment, the very business-minded and technically republican Dutch authorities found it beneficial to revert to a sort of feudalism. This became known as the patroon system by which a major investor would be given the title of patroon, a large tract of land and extensive control over it with powers quite similar to those held by feudal lords in the monarchies of the Old World. The patroon was, for his part, expected to bring in at least 50 families of colonists within four years of receiving his title. This did result in growth for the colony, though still not as much profit as was hoped for.

Peter Stuyvesant

There were also conflicts to deal with as well as commerce such as the two-year long war fought with surrounding native tribes by Director Willem Kieft as well as, in 1655, the conquest of New Sweden by a Dutch force of about 700 led by the feisty, one-legged Director Peter Stuyvesant. He was a more hard-line figure than New Netherland was used to, cutting back on religious freedom in favor of adherence to the Dutch Reformed Church, trying to limit Jewish immigration, encouraging Jewish settlers to leave and becoming increasingly anxious about the rapid growth of the neighboring English colonies and their competition with the Netherlands. Stuyvesant was accused of being rather on the tyrannical side and opposition to him sprang up in the colony. Unfortunately, it was at precisely this same time that New Netherland faced its greatest crisis. That crisis arose when King Charles II of Great Britain, recently restored to his throne, determined to conquer the Dutch colony. Although Charles II had been sheltered in The Netherlands during the Interregnum, his preferred foreign policy was one of friendship with France and hostility toward the Dutch.

James, Duke of York

An expedition of four ships and 450 men, led by royalist civil war veteran Richard Nicholls, set out from Plymouth and arrived to besiege New Netherland on August 27, 1664. As was his character, Stuyvesant wanted to put up as much of a fight as possible but, by this time, he lacked the support of many of his own colonists, some of whom were angry about his policies and others who simply wished for nothing to interfere with their business. They preferred trading their Dutch flag for an English one rather than have a destructive battle that would disrupt commerce. This lack of cohesion meant that there was no chance of the Dutch, under Stuyvesant, standing a chance against the English forces and so, on September 8, 1664 Stuyvesant formally surrender the colony to the King of England and New Netherland was no more. The royal connection in all of this was that King Charles II had promised this area of North America to his brother the Duke of York (later King James II) and Richard Nicholls was Groom of the Chamber to the Duke of York and it was the Duke who had chosen him to command the expedition. It seemed only natural then that New Netherland should be renamed New York in the Duke’s honor.

Even though this episode of American colonial history is not well remembered, the evidence of it still exists in New York City today if you know where to look. Perhaps the most famous landmark is St Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery which was built by Stuyvesant and is where he is buried. His family later sold the property to the Church of England (under conditions) and it is the oldest church in continuous use in New York City. It also features a bust of Stuyvesant which was sent over by Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands in 1915. The flag of New York City is based on the orange-white-blue tricolor of the Netherlands, “the Prince’s Flag” and even the famous financial center of Wall Street, has its name because that site was formerly where a road was along the palisade surrounding New Netherland and thus came to be referred to as Wall Street. The Dutch population and language persisted in parts of New York longer than most probably realize. President Martin Van Buren, for example, grew up speaking Dutch as his first language and many Dutch words, names and even some traditions still survive in parts of New York to this day.

In any event, that is how New York went from being a Dutch colony to being named after the heir to the English throne and Britain’s last Catholic monarch.

The Queen of Canada Visits New York

HM Queen Elizabeth II has ended her tour of the Dominion of Canada and visit to the UN in New York City. Whether reviewing the fleet, meeting with PM Stephen Harper or attending the various other social functions she was invited to, the Queen reminds everyone why she has such an unassailable position and a reputation for never putting ‘a foot wrong’. She does the right things, she says the right things and she does it all with a regal style and class that no political figure could ever hope to match. A number of things about this visit impressed me immensely. I, of course, loved the Queen referring to Canada as “home”; that was a remark sure to go over well and, here is the part many seemed not to understand (at least in US media) -it is true! As the sovereign Canada is as much her home as Australia, New Zealand or the UK.

I was also pleased with Stephen Harper’s remarks (probably since I have been a little disappointed with some seeming lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy on his part in the past). I also cannot help but mention the Queen, ever the picture of civility, doing part of her Canada Day speech in French. Her Majesty, of course, did not visit Quebec due to the shameful reception she has been given there in the past. I cannot help but wonder how long the antics of Quebec will be tolerated by the rest of Canada when so much is done to distance themselves in spite of constant efforts to include them in the Canadian family. The Queen made many of the remarks one expects when talking about Canada but was something more special coming from her. Because it was the Queen of Canada saying these things it reiterated the importance and centrality of the monarchy to Canada.

The republicans mostly took the week off; they prefer to attack someone behind their back than to their face, but when pressed on the issue they had to admit, yet again (and I’m sure they hate this) that the Queen is sacrosanct and they will have to wait until the accession of the Prince of Wales to make their treasonous move. When the Queen left Canada for her brief visit to the United States it was also amusing to watch the reaction of the American media. Fox News Channel (owned by Rupert Murdoch) said almost nothing about it while CNN and MSNBC gave short, glowing but patronizing reports. You really get the impression watching the American media deal with the Queen that they *so* want to impress Her Majesty but *so* don’t want to admit it.

They were mostly complimentary but continuously (and I DO mean continuously) mentioned how “historic” it was when the Queen addressed the UN, how it was like being in a time machine, how it was a ‘blast from the past’. I don’t know if this was a subconscious obsession with the Queen being a fairly elderly woman or if it was part of the correlation in the minds of all liberals that anything relating to monarchy is archaic and out-of-date, very “old fashioned”. Again, they mostly said the Queen looked good, gave a good speech etc but you got the feeling that it was all said with a condescending attitude. Almost without exception you could hear it in their voices that they think the Queen doesn’t really matter and no one should make a fuss over her but that they would be thrilled to pieces if she were to give them any attention. One, I believe on CNN, even asked why the Queen stayed in Canada for so long but made only a brief, whirlwind visit of New York. I guess it is a widespread problem; the number of people who fail to realize that she is the Queen of Canada. God Save Her!

New York Goes Red for Communism

Tomorrow the Empire State Building, once the tallest building in the world, long a symbol of New York and probably the most famous New York City landmark alongside the Statue of Liberty since the destruction of the World Trade Center will be glowing bright red to honor the victory of the communists in China. I only wish I were joking. The skyscraper will be bathed in red and yellow light to mark the 60th anniversary of when communist dictator (and history's most blood-stained mass murderer ever) stood over the Tianenmen gate to the Forbidden City and proclaimed the birth of the "People's Republic of China"; managing to insult the imposing memory of the greatness that was Imperial China while crowing about his victory over the nationalists of the Kuomintang. Why on earth would New York choose to celebrate this event which heralded the birth of probably the most murderous regime in human history?

Keep in mind that, at the time of the Chinese civil war, the United States supported the Republic of China (the nationalists) against the communists. The Red Chinese were the "bad guys" as far as the U.S. was concerned, and for most of the rest of the "Free World" as well. The same party is still in power today, the same government founded by the same man that the United States opposed in their war against the Kuomintang, the same government that the U.S. fought in North Korea, the same government that gave early support to the communist Vietnamese we were fighting and the same government that was the primary ally of Pol Pot in Cambodia and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. This is the same government that has brutalized and erradicated entire populations within their own borders, the same government which routinely condemns people to death simply for being in favor of having more than one "choice" in politics, for speaking unfavorably of their regime, for being Christians or being a Tibetan with some pride.

Besides all of this, the red flag of communism is a symbol that should be spurned simply on principle. It is a corrupt, unnatural, blood-soaked ideology that has brought war, ruin and death to hundreds of millions of people from Cuba to Korea. Nazi Germany never managed to wipe out as many human beings as the communists have, yet we trade with Red China, we borrow money from Red China and so we have to kiss-up to the Chairman in Beijing. I am against the whole disgusting relationship but at this point we are in too deep to them to be overtly hostile. However, we do NOT have to honor them and their violent seizure of power by turning the Empire State Building into the world's tallest red light district. Let me compare this to another salute New York gave via the ESB and that was when the lights were turned purple in honor of the jubilee of HM Queen Elizabeth II. It was a fitting tribute to a great monarch who has shown dignity, courage and devotion to her people for a lifetime as well as a salute to the British kingdom that, in the post 9-11 world and before, had been America's most loyal ally. How on earth, for the love of all the saints and angels in Heaven is this same salute to be given to blood-soaked regime of a bunch of revolutionary communist dictators?!

Words cannot begin to describe my outrage and I can only be grateful that I have nothing at all to do with New York and am very proud to hail from a state where the local Chinese community is still represented by the dragon flag of the Great Qing; the only place in the world as far as I know that the standard of the Chinese Empire still flies. If the ruling elites of New York want to honor some people from the Chinese part of the world and wish to salute their flag I could suggest a couple of options just off the top of my head that might be far more worthy than the blood-red banner of Chinese communism:

I am, dear readers, the VERY, Mad Monarchist.

Dutch Royals Visit New York

(left to right: Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, HRH Princess Maxima, HRH Prince Willem-Alexander of Orange and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton)

The heir to the Dutch throne and his wife are visiting New York City, being shown the sites by Mayor Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton, to start a week-long commemoration of the arrival of the Dutch in New York (which they had named New Netherland) some 400 years ago. The Prince and Princess of Orange were greeted with a 21-gun salute and music by the US Marine Corps band as they addressed the crowd from the deck of the USS Intrepid. Alongside in the harbor were a number of watching ships including an exact replica of the famous Half Moon; the Dutch vessel that carried Henry Hudson to the New World those many centuries ago. The Prince of Orange spoke well of New York and Mayor Bloomberg and Hillary outlined the long shared history of the Netherlands and the United States, Bloomberg making mention of the Royal Netherlands forces fighting alongside the US military in Afghanistan today. 400 Years ago the Dutch established a colony in what is now New York, which they named New Netherland and held for a fair amount of time before being conquered by the English who renamed the area New York in honor of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then the Duke of York, who later went on to become King James II of Great Britain. You can read the details at the New York Daily News.