Regarding today’s column:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050923.html
Boy, I’ve always thought of the netherlands as a sort of European sanctuary – you could hole up there if you were an Anabaptist or Rene Descartes or one of the Mayflower Pilgrims, and nobody would say anything. And you have legal weed and prostitution.
But, on the other hand, occasionally they go nuts over flowers, or they eat their prime minister. I guess you gotta take the bad with the good.
I wonder how he tasted. Gouda?
In the Dutch Wikipedia’s article about Johan de Witt (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_de_Witt) it is written that he was lynched in The Hauge (Den Haag), and not in Amsterdam, as Cecil claims.
This contradicts the basic premise of the entire article, nl. that the prices of real estate on the Herengracht im Amsterdam were influenced because of the lynch.
Could the two incidents be unrelated?
What? They killed him twice?!
Actually, IIRC, I saw a plaque marking the site of the lynching of Johan de Witt in The Hague. It didn’t mention dinner, however.
A few ruling officials have been eaten by Chinese mobs, too.
Shang Yang’s reforms were so hated that after he was executed, the crowd descended on his corpse and ate it. (Not in Wiki article, and I can’t find another cite at the moment.)
Dong Zhuo had his corpse set on fire (and supposedly, he was so fat that he lit up like a tiki torch for days); again, it’s not mentioned in the Wiki article, but some accounts say he was eaten afterwards.
I think maybe Cecil’s little joke
is being taken too literally. I may be missing something, but I don’t see in the column an actual statement that the murder took place in Amsterdam.
Imagine this scenario. China invades the United States. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff takes control of the country. In Washington, the Chief’s officials toss Jeb Bush in jail. George W. Bush goes to the jail to visit his brother. An angry mob kills and eats them both.
I have a feeling that in three centuries, historians would note that the price of real estate in Manhattan took a hit that year.
Encyclopædia Britannica also says that Johan de Witt was lynched in the Hague (no offense to Wikipedia, but I have sometimes seen errors in their articles.)
However, Cecil Adams does not say that Johan de Witt was lynched in Amsterdam. And the New York Times article is saying that the rise in real estate prices coincided with the time of the attack upon the former councillor pensionary. Maybe the author of the NYT article meant that the two events were simultaneous, but did not intend to state that there was a cause and effect relationship? In any case, Cecil Adams does not say that the rise in real estate prices in Amsterdam is what caused a mob to attack Johan de Witt and his brother Cornelius.
Salted licorice? Yes.
Spit when they talk? Yes.
Unhealthy obsessions with bicycles, flowers, and cows? Yes.
Cannibalism? No.
It’s too bad Cecil didn’t go into more of the background of the incident.
This took place during the Dutch Raadpensionaris Collection Mania Bubble of the 1670s. It was a wild and crazy time. A well respected raadpensionaris bought one day might sell for twice as much the next. Unfortunately, the owner of Johan de Witt left him sitting on a barrel in a warehouse. A visitor thought de Witt was an onion and cooked him with dinner. The owner was financially and emotionally devastated.
I can’t stand the Dutch. As well as those who are intolerant of other cultures.
Then there is something you should read, Good American!
Well, I’m actually Canadian…
I always though Canadians were American? I go out of my way to Stress USA or Canadians and use American to mean both.
Which do you prefer?
American = USA
American = USA & Canada
American = Nafta
American = Entire Western hemisphere (The most appropriate and least used)
For simplicity, I tend to go with “American = USA”, though I often find myself saying “North American” for USA+Canada, unfairly excluding the Mexicans.
No, that’s wrong. American refers to someone who lives in America, which isn’t the name of any continent or region larger than a single country. You mean ‘North and South American’, or possibly ‘North American and South American’ if you aren’t into that whole brevity thing.
Look at it this way: The full name of the country to the south of America is actually in Spanish, but in English it works out to ‘The United States of Mexico’. When talking about that country in short, we lop off the adjectival ‘The United States of’ and simply call it ‘Mexico’. The full name of the country where I reside is ‘The United States of America’, and thus it is shortened to ‘America’ in most conversation. There is no confusion, because there is nothing else on Earth called America. There are two continents called North America and South America, neither of which is called America.
That’s fair, I just seem to have a skewed view that USA & Canada have a common culture and are largely one people with two seperate governments. Our Humor, entertainment & major sports all cross borders seemlessly. You generally can’t tell an Actor from USA from one from Canada. The Border has been extremely open. I know there are differences, but I feel I have more in common with someone from Toronto than Alabama as an example. If you married a Canadian, few would consider your spouse to be a foreigner. etc. I guess I just feel we have more in common then not.
I have to apologize, I think I have hijacked this thread very badly.
I guess I should have started a new thread, but I never expected it to go into multiple postings.
Actually, what they mention is a fall in real estate prices. And it isn’t at all obvious that the New York Times article doesn’t intend to imply a causal link, although that might just be their sloppy wording.
But, more importantly, if anyone does think that there’s a direct causal link, then they’re an idiot. 1672 was het rampjaar, the ‘disaster year’, when the French invasion created what has often been considered the worst military, economic and political crisis in Dutch history. It would have been astonishing if house prices in Amsterdam - and in The Hague - hadn’t collapsed. The French invasion alone is sufficient to explain the de Witts’s unpopularity. The falling house prices were a side issue, a symptom of a much, much bigger problem.
Brilliant!
The whole continent is threatened by Dutch imperialism, brother. :mad: