Samenvatting Family Life under Imperial
Rule
Hoorcolleges, werkcolleges en literatuur
,Week 1: New Netherlands
Hoorcollege 1 09-04-2024
Pre-Colonial Period
The Lower Hudson Valley was inhabited by the Munsee and the Upper Hudson Valley was inhabited
by the Mohawks and the Mahicans. The Munsee were not an unified polity but instead they existed of
several smaller groups like the Manhattans, Hackensack, Canarsees, Raritans and Esopus, therefore
making them even more easily affected to the powers of a unified Dutch colonial force.
Depending on the season, they would use different methods for hunting, fishing and gathering but
they would also perform agriculture. Farming was done on an individual level.
Property rights were extremely complicated. There were roughly two different concepts:
● Communal Landholding
○ Land that was accessible to all members of the tribe
○ Hunting and fishing
● Individual or family landholding
○ Specific individuals or kingroups
○ Could be inherited, but if the group moved away or failed to occupy it, the rights to
the land were forfeit
○ The chief was not an autocrat and moved alongside the elders of the society. Chiefs
were only used for negotiating with approval of the tribe.
Hendry Hudson ‘discovered’ New Netherland in 1609. He interacted with the Munsee and the area
was quickly identified as a valuable source of fur and beaver pelts.
At first, the Dutch presence was very tenuous but as the profits of the fur industry increased, the WIC
made claims on the region. The first group of colonists arrived in 1624.
The WIC said that land should just not be seized by force but rather that the colonizers, the Dutch had
to buy land in a more respectful way as to allow the building of a longer lasting relationship. These
purchases were done by exchanging goods that weren’t that expensive for the Dutch but that, on the
other hand, were scarce for the Native Americans (henceforth still allowing very profitable buys). The
Dutch transactions of land ownership were inherently different from those of the Native Americans in
that for the Dutch, transactions had to be put into paper and once made they were non retractable,
hence the owner remained the owner independently of the use.
Eventually, Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Munsee for trade goods equivalent to 60
guilders.
The Native Americans, just like the Dutch, soon realized the major difference they had in
understanding land ownership. This, in turn, led the Indigenous people to insist on including
protective clauses in their selling deeds, as to still grant them access to the land, its natural resources
or merely allow the celebration of certain feasts in some particular territories. This way of
accommodating the Indians for the Dutch, was done simply to allow a more peaceful shift of
ownership and building of a colonial capital by the Dutch without much rivalry.
2
,Werkcollege 1
1) Why, according to Midtrød, is the concept of collective landholding inadequate in describing
landownership in the precolonial Hudson River Valley?
The concept of collective landholding is inadequate in describing landownership according to Midtrod
because it didn’t conclude the whole area. Depending on location and time, the indigenous people
made alterations to their landownership so it can be concluded that groups could differ substantially
from their neighbours. Besides that, groups differed in making collective decisions or leaving it up to
one single sachem. On top of that, precolonial Hudson River Valley barely managed any borders and
if they even had them, they were extremely vague. Additional complications may stem from kinship
and inherited land rights running across political boundaries.
For these reasons it can be stated that it is inadequate to describe landownership in the precolonial
Hudson River Valley as collective landholding.
2) Which methods were used by the Dutch to legitimize their claims to land in New Netherland?
1. By making it clear through conflicts that the indigenous people are not able to defeat the
colonizers. The land sales were a way to buy peace with the intruders.
2. Sending permanent settlers and officials to the colony. This happened from November 1623.
The formation of a permanent colony necessitated the company directors to develop a more
elaborate policy beyond maintaining trade relations with the region’s indigenous peoples.
3. Making contracts with the indigenous people in which they would promise to trade with no
one else except the WIC. These contracts were mostly meant to keep away other European
competitors and to maximize profit.
4. Ensuring that indigenous people would not be able to obtain technology that could be used
against the Dutch. This prohibited the Indians from riding horses or learning to use weapons.
5. Instructing Indians to punish indigenous people when they would commit a crime against the
colonizers.
3) Why were family networks and inheritance systems significant to property rights amongst
indigenous communities in New Netherland?
Family networks and inheritance systems were significant to property rights amongst indigenous
communities in New Netherland because they would contribute to establish new borders and be able
to make negotiations with the Dutch colonizers.
4) How did Native Americans modify Dutch landownership practices to safeguard their
continued access to land?
The Native Americans would insist on setting up a written contract in which all kinds of rules about
the use of the land were established. They would insist they would be able to remain upon the land,
use it for agriculture and make a living there as well as they can.
3
, Literatuur
Midtrød: Native American Landholding in the Colonial Hudson Valley
Interaction between Indian land claimants and prospective European land purchasers generated a
multitude of deeds and other records that may be used to shed light upon how Indian people in this
area possessed land.
Various conflicts like the Peach War made it clear to the Indians that they could not defeat the
colonizers. Land sales should be understood as a way to buy peace with the intruders - and therefore it
must be known to what extent the colonization upsets the Native concept of landholding.
Territoriality
● Neither Natives nor colonists always treated territorial limits as if they were set in stone
● Additional complications may stem from kinship and inherited land rights running across
political boundaries. These boundary areas were sometimes used for ceremonial or political
purposes.
● The possibility that members of one group might sell territory claimed by another carried with
it the potential for conflict. To minimize the conflict, Hudson Valley sachems were sometimes
present as witnesses to the land conveyances. Some witnesses received a share of the goods
given by the purchasers, and these gifts helped ensure that people remembered the
transaction.
Sachems:
● Shared territorial sovereignty with their people.
● Influential when it came to decisions about land. Some transactions served political and
diplomatic purposes
● Dealing with Europeans and other outsiders was their main task.
Individual and Family Landholding
● The families of sachems and other headmen did describe and treat land as their inheritance.
● It is possible that under the pressure of colonization eventually some Hudson Valley Indians
altered their patterns of property rights.
● Individuals and families only possessed land as long as they used it. When they moved
elsewhere within the territory of their people, others might freely appropriate and use this land
without any consideration of prior rights.
Conclusions: Multiple Conceptions of Territoriality
How we should describe Native landholding in this area may depend entirely on particular historical
circumstances because… At times the Indians treated their lands as an integrated territory belonging
to an entire political group, there are other times they behaved as if it belonged to smaller local
communities, and on yet other occasions individuals and their families appeared to be the true
landowners. The population decline caused by foreign diseases may have encouraged tendencies
toward treating land as the permanent possession of individual families simply because of a
substantial reduction in the number of persons who might claim a stake in any particular parcel of
territory. Collective territoriality might have a dormant existence that emerged only when required,
which explains contextual differences in landholding practices.
4
Rule
Hoorcolleges, werkcolleges en literatuur
,Week 1: New Netherlands
Hoorcollege 1 09-04-2024
Pre-Colonial Period
The Lower Hudson Valley was inhabited by the Munsee and the Upper Hudson Valley was inhabited
by the Mohawks and the Mahicans. The Munsee were not an unified polity but instead they existed of
several smaller groups like the Manhattans, Hackensack, Canarsees, Raritans and Esopus, therefore
making them even more easily affected to the powers of a unified Dutch colonial force.
Depending on the season, they would use different methods for hunting, fishing and gathering but
they would also perform agriculture. Farming was done on an individual level.
Property rights were extremely complicated. There were roughly two different concepts:
● Communal Landholding
○ Land that was accessible to all members of the tribe
○ Hunting and fishing
● Individual or family landholding
○ Specific individuals or kingroups
○ Could be inherited, but if the group moved away or failed to occupy it, the rights to
the land were forfeit
○ The chief was not an autocrat and moved alongside the elders of the society. Chiefs
were only used for negotiating with approval of the tribe.
Hendry Hudson ‘discovered’ New Netherland in 1609. He interacted with the Munsee and the area
was quickly identified as a valuable source of fur and beaver pelts.
At first, the Dutch presence was very tenuous but as the profits of the fur industry increased, the WIC
made claims on the region. The first group of colonists arrived in 1624.
The WIC said that land should just not be seized by force but rather that the colonizers, the Dutch had
to buy land in a more respectful way as to allow the building of a longer lasting relationship. These
purchases were done by exchanging goods that weren’t that expensive for the Dutch but that, on the
other hand, were scarce for the Native Americans (henceforth still allowing very profitable buys). The
Dutch transactions of land ownership were inherently different from those of the Native Americans in
that for the Dutch, transactions had to be put into paper and once made they were non retractable,
hence the owner remained the owner independently of the use.
Eventually, Peter Minuit bought Manhattan from the Munsee for trade goods equivalent to 60
guilders.
The Native Americans, just like the Dutch, soon realized the major difference they had in
understanding land ownership. This, in turn, led the Indigenous people to insist on including
protective clauses in their selling deeds, as to still grant them access to the land, its natural resources
or merely allow the celebration of certain feasts in some particular territories. This way of
accommodating the Indians for the Dutch, was done simply to allow a more peaceful shift of
ownership and building of a colonial capital by the Dutch without much rivalry.
2
,Werkcollege 1
1) Why, according to Midtrød, is the concept of collective landholding inadequate in describing
landownership in the precolonial Hudson River Valley?
The concept of collective landholding is inadequate in describing landownership according to Midtrod
because it didn’t conclude the whole area. Depending on location and time, the indigenous people
made alterations to their landownership so it can be concluded that groups could differ substantially
from their neighbours. Besides that, groups differed in making collective decisions or leaving it up to
one single sachem. On top of that, precolonial Hudson River Valley barely managed any borders and
if they even had them, they were extremely vague. Additional complications may stem from kinship
and inherited land rights running across political boundaries.
For these reasons it can be stated that it is inadequate to describe landownership in the precolonial
Hudson River Valley as collective landholding.
2) Which methods were used by the Dutch to legitimize their claims to land in New Netherland?
1. By making it clear through conflicts that the indigenous people are not able to defeat the
colonizers. The land sales were a way to buy peace with the intruders.
2. Sending permanent settlers and officials to the colony. This happened from November 1623.
The formation of a permanent colony necessitated the company directors to develop a more
elaborate policy beyond maintaining trade relations with the region’s indigenous peoples.
3. Making contracts with the indigenous people in which they would promise to trade with no
one else except the WIC. These contracts were mostly meant to keep away other European
competitors and to maximize profit.
4. Ensuring that indigenous people would not be able to obtain technology that could be used
against the Dutch. This prohibited the Indians from riding horses or learning to use weapons.
5. Instructing Indians to punish indigenous people when they would commit a crime against the
colonizers.
3) Why were family networks and inheritance systems significant to property rights amongst
indigenous communities in New Netherland?
Family networks and inheritance systems were significant to property rights amongst indigenous
communities in New Netherland because they would contribute to establish new borders and be able
to make negotiations with the Dutch colonizers.
4) How did Native Americans modify Dutch landownership practices to safeguard their
continued access to land?
The Native Americans would insist on setting up a written contract in which all kinds of rules about
the use of the land were established. They would insist they would be able to remain upon the land,
use it for agriculture and make a living there as well as they can.
3
, Literatuur
Midtrød: Native American Landholding in the Colonial Hudson Valley
Interaction between Indian land claimants and prospective European land purchasers generated a
multitude of deeds and other records that may be used to shed light upon how Indian people in this
area possessed land.
Various conflicts like the Peach War made it clear to the Indians that they could not defeat the
colonizers. Land sales should be understood as a way to buy peace with the intruders - and therefore it
must be known to what extent the colonization upsets the Native concept of landholding.
Territoriality
● Neither Natives nor colonists always treated territorial limits as if they were set in stone
● Additional complications may stem from kinship and inherited land rights running across
political boundaries. These boundary areas were sometimes used for ceremonial or political
purposes.
● The possibility that members of one group might sell territory claimed by another carried with
it the potential for conflict. To minimize the conflict, Hudson Valley sachems were sometimes
present as witnesses to the land conveyances. Some witnesses received a share of the goods
given by the purchasers, and these gifts helped ensure that people remembered the
transaction.
Sachems:
● Shared territorial sovereignty with their people.
● Influential when it came to decisions about land. Some transactions served political and
diplomatic purposes
● Dealing with Europeans and other outsiders was their main task.
Individual and Family Landholding
● The families of sachems and other headmen did describe and treat land as their inheritance.
● It is possible that under the pressure of colonization eventually some Hudson Valley Indians
altered their patterns of property rights.
● Individuals and families only possessed land as long as they used it. When they moved
elsewhere within the territory of their people, others might freely appropriate and use this land
without any consideration of prior rights.
Conclusions: Multiple Conceptions of Territoriality
How we should describe Native landholding in this area may depend entirely on particular historical
circumstances because… At times the Indians treated their lands as an integrated territory belonging
to an entire political group, there are other times they behaved as if it belonged to smaller local
communities, and on yet other occasions individuals and their families appeared to be the true
landowners. The population decline caused by foreign diseases may have encouraged tendencies
toward treating land as the permanent possession of individual families simply because of a
substantial reduction in the number of persons who might claim a stake in any particular parcel of
territory. Collective territoriality might have a dormant existence that emerged only when required,
which explains contextual differences in landholding practices.
4
