Who has contributed more to civilization: The Netherlands or Russia?

[Joe McCarthy]

These threads seem to be becoming a theme, even if jokingly in some cases, so let's try this one next.

[Kataphraktoi]

I say the Netherlands because they have been responsible for numerous scientific and technological innovations, and spectacular architecture and art during the baroque period. This is especially impressive since it is such a small country.

[Stars Down To Earth]

Hmmm, this isn't exactly an easy question.

Russia was ranked right above the Netherlands in the infamous book Human Accomplishment (with Britain being highest of them all ), which measures the cultural/scientific/mental advances of various human groups. But then again, Russia is a way bigger country and much more heterogenous. The Dutch people have made really impressive innovations for being such a tiny country. Medicine, baroque architecture, artworks, and so on.

In general, Dutch contributions to civilisation tend to the more "technological", while the Russian ones were more "cultural" (excluding their space tech and Sputnik satellite, and all that).

So yeah, I voted for "about even".

[Joe McCarthy]

In general, Dutch contributions to civilisation tend to the more "technological", while the Russian ones were more "cultural" (excluding their space tech and Sputnik satellite, and all that).

I think that appraisal is generally accurate, but the culture gap is pretty close too as the Dutch have Van Gogh and Rembrandt. Russian cultural achievement, by contrast, is found mostly in music and especially literature.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Netherlands

Many economic historians regard the Netherlands as the first thoroughly capitalist country in the world. In early modern Europe it featured the wealthiest trading city (Amsterdam) and the first full-time stock exchange. The inventiveness of the traders led to insurance and retirement funds as well as such phenomena like the boom-bust cycle, the world's first asset-inflation bubble, the tulip mania of 1636–1637, and according to Murray Sayle, the world's first bear raider, Isaac le Maire, who forced prices down by dumping stock and then buying it back at a discount.

I know many dislike capitalism, but even Marx acknowledged it led to unprecedented expansion, affluence, wealth, and I'll add, power. We can thank the Netherlands for that.

[Tchek]

Isaac Le Maire is actually born in modern day Belgium

[Joe McCarthy]

Isaac Le Maire is actually born in modern day Belgium

This raises an interesting question: given the tendency of artists, businessmen, etc., to come among the Dutch during their Golden Age to take advantage of their climate of free expression, free inquiry, and tolerance, to what extent can the Dutch take credit for these foreigners? The Dutch case is undoubtably a special one as it allowed liberty to voice controversial and new ideas. People like Descartes, for example, lived in the Netherlands for many years. He wrote his major works there.

[Tchek]

This raises an interesting question: given the tendency of artists, businessmen, etc., to come among the Dutch during their Golden Age to take advantage of their climate of free expression, free inquiry, and tolerance, to what extent can the Dutch take credit for these foreigners? The Dutch case is undoubtably a special one as it allowed liberty to voice controversial and new ideas. People like Descartes, for example, lived in the Netherlands for many years. He wrote his major works there.

The problem here I think is that, as a Belgian, neighbours tend to proclaim Belgium's heritage and make it their own, because it is a common perception that Belgians aren't supposed to have a history because the country is "born" in 1830. Why?

In 1830, the UK of Netherlands was cut in half, why does the northern part of it (modern day Netherlands) inherited the prestige of its history while the south didn't? That doesn't make any sense. Either both countries are new, or neither of them is. Similarly, modern France is born after the French revolution. Now of course north-western mainland Europe is complicated because everything is intertwined.

But, here is something Belgians have to deal with:
*some crap celebrity born in the US, but whose grand-grand-grand stepfather was half French*
People reaction = "HE IS FRENCH, THE FRENCH BROUGHT SO MUCH TO TEH WORLD!!!1111"

*an inventor born in Belgium, of Belgian parents and grand parents*
People reaction= "lolwut belgian? yeah right he was just born there"

See? Clovis is just "born there", Charles V was just "born there"... yet no one will question Napoleon's frenchness, who actually was Italian. Chopin and Apolinaire are sometimes considered French, they are both from Poland.

So I think it comes down to a nation's prestige. A personality becomes very easily French, just by association (Hemmingway, Pierre Cardin, Josephine Baker...). I think it's true for Netherlands too, to a lesser extent.
It is a common perception for exemple that New York was founded by the Dutch (mainly due to Peter Stuyvesant), yet a significant part of the so-called Dutch settlers came from modern day Belgium (belgian Peter Minuit actually bought Manhattan from the indians, Stuyvesant came much later on).

[Laudanum]

Jesus Christ. Not another thread like this.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Maybe the poll should be reworded as 'The Dutch' so as to include those Dutch who are/were from territories outside the modern day Netherlands.

Both of these are worthy competitors, but the Russians were latecomers, and over time I think the Dutch contributed more, especially on a per-capita basis.