Dutch Tolerance, the myth (1960's -2002)

There is a lot of talk during the last.. well… decades if not centuries, about the so called “Dutch tolerance” and yes, if you check our past the Dutch have been a very tolerant people. First of course there s the multicultural aspect.. If you check cities like Amsterdam or Utrecht you will see that we have many nationalities roaming across the city streets. You can see a lot of people from the former colonies like Suriname and Bonaire whom have been part of our Dutch culture for many centuries. Most of these Dutchman you will find in Amsterdam and Rotterdam as where the Hague is more the city where you will find the people that originate from areas like Indonesia. Since the mid 60 there has been a huge growth in Dutchman that originate from the middle Eastern areas like Morocco and Turkey and with the things happening in central and north Africa in recent decades the amount of people originating from the African continent has been growing as well.



Of course where cultures meet lot of things happen, always has been doing that always will be doing that. These “things” can be positive and negative but they almost always come from either lack of knowledge about a certain culture or (more positive) curiosity about these different cultures.

Of course all these “new Dutch” had their reasons for coming to the Netherlands. When it comes to people from the former colonies many things can be the reason ranging from economic to family related issues, although clearly not “original Dutch” I don’t think there are many Dutch that are counting them as “allochtoon”

An “Allowhat?” you might ask yourself now. In the Netherlands there is a distinction between the people that are “original” Dutch and those that are “Import”. If you are Born and bred Dutch with Dutch parents and grandparents you are considered “Autochtoon”. Anybody else is considered “Allochtoon”. I Highly doubt  if there is a translation for these words in English (or any other language for that matter). It has been “invented” as political correct alternative for the many words depicting “others” that might be offending to the subject in question such as “Negers” (litteral “Negros” but more regarded in the same way by many as the dreaded “N” word” in English)



So..back to the reasons of moving to the Netherlands. As said, the former people from our former colonies could have many reason like work or family related. Then there is a large group of people that originate from either Morocco or Turkey. In the post WWII era there was enough work in Holland, in fact there was so much work that the Dutch where feeling to “high and mighty” to do the dirty work themselves. If you where Dutch in those days you would opt for a job as manager or salesman, working in a store or in an office building. Jobs like Garbage collector, factory line worker, cleaner and maid where “sourced out”. Many small temp job agencies came to live that had a representative in these countries and they where recruiting the Moroccan and Turkeys people for these “Dirty jobs” Many came to Holland invited by us to do the jobs we didn’t want to do ourselves. Although many came here as “temp workers” or as we called them “Gast Arbeiders” (Guest workers) most of them ended up staying either marrying someone they met over here but in many cases bringing wife and kids over as well. No real efforts where made during those days to have these people integrating into our society since “they would not stay anyways”

Here is where the main problem started, although we did invite these people most of us never really tried to actually “get to know them”. If you where lucky, people greeted each other when they met but more interaction then that was not really there. However as it goes with people, most of us get kids eventually and these kids grew up in a split world. In one world they where at home wit their family, the language was Arabic (Moroccan, Turkeys, Kurdisch etc etc) and there was (and still is btw) a big chance that at least one if not both parents where unable to speak proper Dutch. Since these kids grew up never hearing Dutch they entered the school systems with a severe disadvantage since all classes in Dutch schools (some university classes excluded) are. in Dutch. Imagine being 6 and going to the first grade for the first time and being greeted by a lady that is talking to you like your deaf (why are people shouting when they talk to deaf people, they can’t hear you). often in typical Dutch “high speed talking” Kids at the playground laughing at you or with you? or are they even laughing? could be crying, or shouting or, or, or). So these kids start with a disadvantage that often only gets bigger with time passing since teachers simply don’t have the time p go one on one with a student.



And so this first “Dutch born” generation grew up in relative anonymity. Although these kids did learn the language, the cultural gap between home and school still made them relatively lost between two worlds and many if not most of these kids left school after primary school. However by then the jobs we Dutch didn’t want to do when there parents came over we now needed ourselves and so the unemployment within this generation grew bigger and bigger.

It was the 2nd and 3rd generation after WWII (basically my generation) and the things that happened in WWII was something we only knew from History class and the things our own parents still knew. Since our own parents where typically around 5 or 6 in”45 the seriousness of what had happened did not sink in for a lot of people. Yes, we knew there had been war, people had been killed and we did understand that such a war should never happen again however the reasons and motives… we just didn’t mirror it onto how we treated our Moroccan class mates unwillingly creating a generation of kids that grew up with bullying and in some cases even flat out hatred towards them. Then the extreme right wing started to show it’s ugly face.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="328"] Old pamflet of the CD saying: You can choose before it is too late[/caption]

First there was Hans Janmaat , This man was from the WWII generation (born in ‘37) and should have know better but he was the first really racist, right wing politician in our country. Janmaat wanted to represent the indigenous Dutch workers and middle class. His views were based mostly on economic and materialistic arguments rather than an underlying ideology.Disappointing economic growth, unemployment and government cutbacks could not be addressed while large numbers of immigrants were flowing into the country Janmaat was against a multicultural society: he argued that immigrants should either assimilate into Dutch culture, or return to their country of birth. His best known slogans were "Holland is not a country of immigration," "full=full" and "we will abolish the multicultural society, as soon as we get the chance and power"; he was convicted for the last two statements. According to Jan van de Beek, Hans Janmaat often used economic arguments in his tirades against immigrants.



He was often accused of committing acts of hate speech, and received fines and a conditional prison sentence for incitement to hatred and discrimination against foreigners.

He often made controversial remarks about immigrants and other politicians. He argued that Ernst Hirsch Ballin should not be allowed to hold a high office because of his Jewish heritage  and said he was not saddened by the sudden death of political opponent Ien Dales.

Other parties erected a cordon sanitaire around Janmaat, ignoring him while he spoke in parliament. A taboo on discussing negative aspects of immigration existed in the Dutch political climate in the 1980s.

Meindert Fennema, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory of Ethnic Relations at the University of Amsterdam, argued in 2006 that Janmaat was convicted for statements that are now commonplace  due to changes in the political climate (caused in part by the September 11 attacks, and the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh).

More in the following blog

A secret form of Animal Abuse: Greed (once again a long read)

Hi all

As you know I have my MCM project which last month kicked off with some articles about Wolf Haven International, A great organization that stands up for these great animals. This month I was planning to choose one of the bigger animal welfare organizations when I got warned about some of the most famous ones. I am talking about the ASPCA and the HSUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_JqNdp2As

Above commercial is for the ASPCA, if you look at the video (and many other commercials for the ASPCA and the HSUS) what is your impression. My impression, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if I am donating money to them it (or at least a major part of it) is used to fund and maintain shelters, rescue animals and give safety and food to abandoned animals right?

If only



Following article found on this site sums it up nicely

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

The President and CEO of the ASPCA is Matthew Bershadker. Prior to June 2013, Ed Sayre held the position of power within the ASPCA, but after a seemingly endless stream of scandals, Sayre was removed. Those who were hopefully that Sayre’s removal would lead to a moral and upright man being put in charge were disappointed to see Bershadker come on the scene. As men running one of the largest Animal Cruelty Groups (ACG) in the nation, and an ACG run by donations, to boot, you’d think they would be modest men working for the greater good. Unfortunately, it is the almighty dollar that the former and current President/CEO are working towards. Sayre’s annual income from the ASPCA’s bulging coffers was reported over $550,000 annually while Bershadker has, thus far, pulled in what will become more than $566,000 a year. The average annual salary for local ASPCA heads has been reported to the IRS at approximately $70,000 while directors pull in upwards of $100,000 each year and so-called consulting animal behaviorist net $65,000. That said, there are independent branches of the SPCA without ties to the New York ACG, such as the Wake County SPCA in North Carolina, where the shelter managers work for next-to-nothing or nothing. They are the exception rather than the rule and are, ironically, the very people who should be receiving some portion of the ASPCA President’s bloated salary. Of course, the ASPCA at large sees Bershadker as immensely successful, citing increased donations and expansion as markers of their great wisdom in bringing him onto their team. In the eyes of the ASPCA upper echelon, success is created not by saving the sad-eyed, broken-down creatures featured in their ads but by raking in money. But just where does that money come from, and where does it go?



One of the ASPCA’s and HSUS’s favored expenditures is advertising. And although it is logical that one must spend money to make money, perhaps they get a bit carried away. In 2009, ASPCA Senior Vice-President Todd Hendricks said the ASPCA spent twenty cents for every one dollar of donations. In 2013, the number has changed to approximately twenty-seven cents per dollar. Now, it is worth noting that when Hendricks talks about that ratio of cost to donations, he is discussing the cost of advertisements such as the hugely successful Sarah McLachlan television commercials. Money is also spent on fancy pay-per-plate dinners, among other upper-class fundraisers, and those funds are not included in this figure. In 2009, the ASPCA spent more than 19 million dollars on advertising, a number which has only increased in recent years.



A weighty issue for critics of the ASPCA is their handling of advertising on a national level. The ASPCA is one of the largest and most profitable ACG charities in the country, but it is located in New York. There are an estimated 3,500 animal shelters in the United States, some of which are SPCAs and some of which the public believes are HSUS-affiliated. The perception that your local SPCA shelter is linked to the ASPCA and therefore will receive some portion of the donations you make to the phone number shown during commercials like Sarah McLachlan’s ad is false. The New York-based ASPCA was founded as its own entity in 1866 while your local SPCA’s have various dates of establishment. There is no actual link between the two, meaning the ASPCA is not an umbrella corporation for the smaller, locally run SPCAs. When you call the phone number at the bottom of the screen during an ASPCA commercial, your money goes to the New York-based ASPCA, not to your local SPCA. If you want to support your local SPCA shelter, you have to call them directly. Of course, the ASPCA makes a point to say they give a portion of donations to local shelters. But the reality is that in 2012, the ASPCA gave just 0.045% of its multi-million dollar donations to local shelters. That’s less than one-half of one percent, broken down in even tinier portions in order to be spread all over the country. Remember those 3,500 shelters in the U.S.? A surprisingly large number of those are SPCAs. Imagine the funding they receive from a tiny fraction of what was, in the first place, a tiny fraction.

 

Just what percentage of the ASPCA’s massive donations actually goes to the animals is up for some debate. Although tax information is publically available, finding out what the accurate percentages are is a whole different story. At the high end, some claim as much as just below 50% of donations goes to the animals. At the low end, there is a growing group of critics claiming the ASPCA uses only $11.00 of every $100.00 donated on the animals. In order to get an idea of the most likely situation for yourself, consider these verifiable statistics regarding how many animals the ASPCA “saved” in 2012. The ASPCA themselves claims they saved 4,000 dogs last year. Their IRS statement for 2012 shows $226 million dollars in gross receipts. Let’s be generous and say the ASPCA gives half its donations to the animals. That would mean each dog was given $28,250 of care and supplies. When you consider most shelters feed their dogs cheap grocery-store dog foods like Pedigree and Atta Boy, which runs about $20 for a forty-pound bag and will feed a large dog for a month or more, you cannot help but wonder where the money has gone (and, of course, dog food is a common donation item at all shelters, so it is often free to feed the dogs in residence). It certainly does not cost tens of thousands of dollars per year per dog to keep their run clean and their water bowl full. If your dog had $28,250 just for them each year, how would you spend it? Even the most elaborate surgeries – many of which a shelters cannot provide – would not take as much out of those funds as you might think. Now let’s consider the numbers at the lower level. Ten percent of donations going to the animals equates to approximately $5,650 per dog. Even that is a large number considering most dogs receive inexpensive kibble, tap water and vaccines (vaccines adopting parents are often asked to pay for). Dogs who are not already neutered or spayed will, of course, be altered, but many dogs have already been fixed before ending up at the ASPCA. And when you consider the way surgical and other veterinary costs are marked up – iso anesthetic is often marked up as much as ten or fifteen times its actual cost when billed to a client – you might wonder if the ASPCA is paying exorbitant amounts on medical needs. However, many shelter veterinarians either volunteer their time or receive practically nothing for their services. And medical supplies, including medications and IV bags, are often donated. Interestingly, on their public IRS forms, 90 million dollars is written off as “other”. So why has no one noticed that there is trouble in ASPCA land? Actually, they have.

 

The ASPCA has been part of a RICO case for quite some time. RICO stands for “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations”. As of 1970, the RICO act made it possible for organizations like the ASPCA to be charged with crimes they either assisted in or ordered others to carry out for them. The case was kept out of the mainstream media spotlight with a great deal of finesse, which is most likely where some of the ASPCA’s money went for years. In 2000, the ASPCA, along with Tom Rider, a man claiming to be a former Ringling Bros. employee, filed a complaint against Ringling Bros. The gist of the case was that Tom Rider had witnessed Ringling Bros. employees abusing animals – specifically, elephants – and that his exposure to said abuse resulted in his own emotional trauma. In 2012, yes, twelve years after the original complaint was filed, the courts finally figured out that the ASPCA was paying Tom Rider to be the plaintiff in the case. This discovery resulted in RICO charges being filed against the ASPCA – and they lost. Tom Rider, the courts decided, never witnessed any such abuse. The ASPCA was simply paying him to say he did.

 

Interestingly, the ASPCA is not the only ACG involved. Also involved is a group that is said to have overstepped the boundaries of right and wrong on numerous occasions – HSUS.

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

During the Academy Awards in February 2012, an ad campaign was launched against HSUS. The ad painted HSUS as a money-hungry organization with little to no interest in actually helping animals. The main point of the brief commercial was a claim that less than one-half of one percent of its budget – coming out to less than one penny for each dollar spent – is spent on shelters. (It’s worth noting HSUS donated $2.25 million to a political campaign that was anti-meat in one year alone, which is far more than quadruple the $450,000 they doled out to the thousands of shelters in the country in that same year.) The tiny shelter contributions caused an uproar in the pet-loving community and, of course, within HSUS itself. However, when the media approached Human Society President and CEO Wayne Pacelle and gave him a chance to defend the constantly expanding ACG, he couldn’t. Turns out, it’s true. Much like the ASPCA, HSUS is not actually affiliated with your local shelters. Just because they have parts of their name in common with the massive organization does not mean the humane shelter down the street has any ties whatsoever to HSUS. Pacelle righteously informed the media that HSUS never said they would give money to shelters, making the ad’s accusations what he referred to as a “false frame” of HSUS’s financial numbers. After all, according to Pacelle, they spent “tens of millions” annually on sterilization, an issue they take seriously. Therefore, in Pacelle’s logic, HSUS’s paltry handouts to various shelters shouldn’t matter. But ask yourself, when you are moved by the images of filthy, wounded and otherwise pitiful puppies and kittens in an HSUS advertisement and pull out your wallet, are you hoping your hard-earned cash goes to spays and neuters, or food, actual shelter and emergent medical care? That’s not to say it isn’t important to stop just any cat or dog from reproducing at random but rather it is a matter of perspective (also, the horrifying statistics on the reproduction of the U.S. animal population pushed by shelters have been proven to be hugely inflated). And, again, remember that having a pet fixed is not actually a pricey venture. Low-cost sterilization clinics associated with local shelters typically charge around $55 per procedure. Ten million dollars alone would buy hundreds of thousands of spays and neuters if they were paying patient rates at a low-cost clinic. Imagine what tens of millions could do. The markup of services for the general public is understandable and seen for services rendered across the board, but supplies are considerably cheaper for your average shelter as are services in general. So how many spays and neuters would tens of millions buy at cost?



And how much money does HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle bring home? Unlike Bershadker, who brings in more than half a million dollars annually, Pacelle has been making more than $270,000 a year for some time now. While this may seem a paltry number beside Bershadker’s annual take, it’s still quite impressive. After all, only those in the doctor-lawyer-wall street banker class make over $100,000 in the real world, let alone over a quarter million. anesthesiologist, who hold people’s very lives in their hands, can make $250,000 and more, and so can UPS pilots. Not your average pilot, though, many of them don’t even make half that. Pacelle’s qualifications? Degrees in history and environmental studies. Pretty good considering most history teachers only manage to scrape by on about $40,000 a year. But maybe he has a heart for animals and throws himself into his work wholeheartedly. Maybe he’s a diehard animal lover. You’d have to be, right, to work for THE Humane Society?

 

“I don’t love animals or think they’re cute.” – Wayne Pacelle

“I don’t love animals or think they’re cute.” Yes, Wayne Pacelle said that. His supporters say any journalist using that phrase as a stand-alone quote is misrepresenting his beliefs, so here is the entire quote: “I don’t love animals or think they’re cute. I respect them.” In the quote he goes on to say that he would be in the forests around Yale Thanksgiving morning fighting against Yale and the DEP’s annual deer hunt. He spent years as a member of the extraordinarily radical anti-hunting group Fund for Animals, even working his way into a director position. In fact, before he was even out of college, he had been arrested for his extreme behavior harassing hunters. Pacelle equates hunting as on par with cock fights and dog fighting, which is a brutal stereotype for a pastime where most who participate take care to utilize every part of the animal. Yes, some people are wasteful, but even those who waste the skin still eat the meat. You don’t find many hunters wandering into the woods to shoot a deer, watch it fall, say “well, that was fun” and go home empty-handed. So why is the head of HSUS so concerned with sport hunting? Because that’s what the Humane Society of the United States does.

 

Polls and common sense show that more than 71% of Americans believe HSUS’s focus is dog and cat shelters. When you picture HSUS, do you picture a bunch of PETA-like animal-rights activists, or do you picture a group working to rescue, feed and house helpless cats and dogs? Probably the latter, which makes you like just about every other American. However, public records and decades of business practices show that HSUS’s goals actually revolve around animal rights, to an extreme. In fact, many farmers are now speaking out against HSUS because the Humane Society has taken it upon itself to try to force GMO labeling, at any cost. This is neither the time nor word-count place to get into the pros and cons of GMO labeling, so let’s simply ask why a group that advertises itself as an ACG (remember, that’s Animal Cruelty Group, as in they try to stop it) is wading into the GMO labeling fight? And that’s not all they’re involved in. Unsurprising considering who runs things at HSUS.

 

John Goodwin, one of the men hired by Wayne Pacelle, was brought into HSUS in 1997 and is, today, their director of animal cruelty/animal fighting policy. What would people say if they knew Goodwin made the FBI’s terror watch list decades ago thanks to his involvement with an exceedingly violent group called the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)? When questioned by the media about a fire set by ALF members that caused million-dollar damage, Goodwin was quoted as saying he is “ecstatic” about the event. Goodwin also had his hand in the Michael Vick case, which brings us to the next issue: how does HSUS spend the money it collects for specific events? Let’s take a look at Michael Vick and Hurricane Katrina.

“Your gift will be put to use right away to care for these dogs.” HSUS ad regarding the Michael Vick case

Following the Michael Vick dog fighting scandal’s hard-to-miss splash into mainstream media, HSUS decided to get involved. Dog fighting is a horrific atrocity, and no matter how big or small their names are, those involved should always be punished not only to the full extent of the law but far beyond it. Unfortunately, for the most part animal cruelty laws are depressingly lax across the entire country. When agents raided Vick’s property, almost fifty dogs were healthy enough to be taken away. Of those, only one was so irredeemably aggressive that rescuers had no choice but to euthanize him after countless failed attempts to save him. Twenty-two of the more problematic dogs went to Best Friends Animal Society whose headquarters are in Utah, but who also have a branch in Los Angeles. Best Friends worked tirelessly to teach the lifelong fighting dogs what it means to simply be a pet rather than a cold-blooded killer. The real killer was Vick, who murdered eight dogs in and around April of 2007 - that we know of, a number which is, in reality, probably much higher. Considering Vick is known to have been fighting dogs for nearly a decade, the April 2007 killings are most likely just the tip of the iceberg. Dogs were killed by hanging from trees on the property, having their heads held underwater in a five-gallon bucket and, in at least one case, a dog had his head repeatedly bashed into the ground until he died. Dogs in Vick’s “care” could count on being electrocuted, shot, burned and beaten, among other methods of torture. It is clear that the forty-nine living dogs seized by agents needed extra-special care, and in advertisements hastily created and broadcast, HSUS promised to do just that. In the ads, HSUS asked for money specifically to help the dozens of dogs still living who were abused by Vick. The print ad read: “…make a special gift to help the Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case… your gift will be put to use right away to care for these dogs.” And since the dogs were in the public spotlight and clearly needed help, the donations immediately began to pour in, as usual. However, this one rare time, HSUS was called on its crap. The New York Times reported accurately that not only was HSUS not providing any care whatsoever to the Vick dogs but that Wayne Pacelle went on the record saying the dogs should be immediately euthanized. After being caught with their hand in the doggy cookie jar, HSUS was forced to halt all Michael Vicks-related donation requests.

 

Another troubling donation campaign occurred at the time of the infamous Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, famous for Mardi Grass and the French Quarter (and a scary high crime rate), sits below sea level. The poorly engineered levees that were stopping the city from being completely immersed under water finally gave up during Hurricane Katrina. FEMA’s sluggish response to the disaster, despite then-President Bush’s declaring New Orleans an emergency quickly and also signing the initial 10.5 billion dollar relief package without delay, received national attention. FEMA even sidetracked rescuers coming from out of the state into Atlanta, Georgia, for two solid days of training on subject matter like sexual harassment. Pets of the displaced residents were hardly considered in the disastrously bungled relief response. In their usual style, HSUS immediately began campaigning to raise funds for the dogs and cats of New Orleans. If there’s one thing they’re talented at, it’s raising money, and indeed HSUS raised over 34 million dollars for the pets of New Orleans residents. How did they spend the money? Actually, only $7 million of that $34 million was spent on New Orleans. The remaining $27 million remains unaccounted for to this day. There were quite a few rescue groups and animal shelters involved in the post-Katrina efforts whose volunteers worked tirelessly and with hardly any funding whatsoever. Thousands of pets were saved, no thanks to HSUS. The fact that those pets were saved with hardly any financial support makes it all the more impressive. The countless Americans who wanted to help the then-homeless cats and dogs funneled their money to HSUS, thinking it would be spent on New Orleans, just as the ads said it would be. But it wasn’t.

The reality of the matter is that HSUS does not own any shelters, making the advertisements depicting trembling dogs and cats misleading – at best. The few reserves they own are mostly for wildlife. Their focus is and always has been on political policies relating to issues such as hunting (they want to make it illegal), eating meat (yes, they also want to make it illegal) and farm animals (apparently they should be extinct because, Pacelle says, they are the result of “human selective breeding”). And while animal rights is, on its surface, a worthwhile cause, HSUS tends to support the extremist side. Just like the ASPCA. For example, they have made it clear their belief is that animals should run free and those of us who keep cats and dogs as pets are abusing them. When a special breed of cattle was created for the consumer market, HSUS was there saying on the record they were fine with the extinction of domestic cattle. They grudgingly deal with a very few pet-related issues which seems to be more for appearance’s sake and makes up only a fraction of a single percentage point of their spending. And even that is misrepresented. If you see their number of dogs and cats they supposedly helped to spay and neuter, bear in mind the number is rather inflated. Their annual report showing tens of thousands of altered pets is more than a little hyper-inflated. They come up with that number by counting pets altered by more than 400 shelters and countless spay/neuter organizations. HSUS didn’t actually have those tens of thousands of pets fixed. Their tie is tenuous at best and typically means they, at some point, included that shelter in their annual one-half of one percentage point shelter contributions. Many shelters make local headlines when they reach their breaking point after tiring of people thinking HSUS is a shelter-focused entity when their own shelter received either nothing or simply a thousand dollars from the group. HSUS is the richest and most powerful ACG in the world, and not many people realize where their donation dollars go. Out of the approximately $100 million in donations they receive every year through campaigns like those for Michael Vick’s dogs and Hurricane Katrina-affected pets, $20 million goes to salaries. They defend Pacelle’s bloated salary with the ludicrous comparison that, after all, it’s only one-quarter the size of the National Rifle Association (NRA) President’s. Comparing HSUS to the NRA is not apples and oranges, it’s apples and ammo. There is simply no comparison. Remember, HSUS is a 501(c)(3) (the NRA is not), meaning it is considered a charitable organization. They gather funding from unsuspecting animal lovers by presenting themselves as the rescuers of helpless cats and dogs, but the reality is they are far more focused on how dairy cattle and pigs used for meat are housed than they are on whether or not Fido has a loving home. They’ve gone on the record repeatedly saying they have “no problem with the extinction of domestic animals.” And when Michael Vick decided to make his comeback as a dog owner, HSUS was right there to help with Pacelle telling the media Vick “would do a good job as a pet owner.” That was also one of the rare times the ASPCA did the right thing, because they flat-out refused to deal with Vick, let alone endorse him or help him obtain a pet. So what is the result of all this misleading advertising for financial gain? Some sources claim the ASPCA may be losing its 501(c)(3) status.

While this may all seem rather depressing, there are plenty of charities out there that not only need but deserve your help. Sticking with local shelters tends to be wisest, although you should keep in mind that most are kill shelters. That means they euthanize pets that either surpass a set number of days in residence or have little to no chance of adoption (think elderly and infirm). There are no-kill shelters out there, and it is well worth finding one in your area. Rather than sending a check or debit payment to the ASPCA or HSUS this Christmas, why not send your donation to your local no-kill shelter? They need the money far more and will put it to much better use. Do you eat meat? Do you have a beloved dog or cat in your home that you no doubt spoil and love enormously? Are you a farmer, or do you support your local farmers? Do you like to hunt, no doubt making very good use of the resulting meat? Then you are exactly the kind of person HSUS is fighting against. It appears the fraction of a percentage point both the ASPCA and HSUS actually spend on pet rescues is done simply so they can say they’ve done it. No one thinks to check but instead simply trusts the public face presented by both groups. In this season of giving, make sure your gift of donor dollars goes to a deserving charity. Don’t be fooled by the ACG equivalent of the Grinch stealing any hope of Christmas from helpless dogs and cats. After all, would you rather your money goes to actually rescue an abandoned pet or do you want to pay an extreme activist’s salary? Abraham Lincoln said “I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.” One could easily restate the words of one of our country’s most famous Presidents as “I care not much for a man’s charity whose dog and cat are not the better for it.” What group do you know that puts real time and energy into bettering dogs and cats? Seek them out, and make them the recipients of your donations, both for Christmas and year-round

Now before you start saying that I used a "biased" site you might wanna check out the sources as well, these are all public record and will be listed below. I have decided that I will not take any of these organizations for my MCM project and have instead chosen to have a Charity that deals with kids for April, what it is I will reveal today/tomorrow (depending on your location). I do not say that if you wish to do so you should NOT donate to this group of charities but it is my personal believe that donating directly to your local shelter (and if possible a no kill shelter) has the most impact and will generate the best revenue for these animals per dollar/euro/pound/yen/whateveryauseforcoins

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2013, from Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.comments&orgid=3286#UqQPEycucfx

ASPCA. (n.d.). Annual Report. Retrieved December 2013, from ASPCA: http://www.aspca.org/about-us/annual-report

Battista, F. (2013, March 8). The Michael Vick Dogs. Retrieved December 2013, from Best Friends:http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2013/03/08/the-michael-vick-dogs/

Browder, C. (2011, November 21). Donating to Humane Society, ASPCA? Your money may not go to NC.Retrieved December 2013, from WRAL.com:http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/10410881/

Christian, S. (2011, May 19). Placer SPCA says tv ads do harm. Retrieved December 2013, from The Press Tribune: http://www.thepresstribune.com/article/placer-spca-says-tv-ads-do-harm

Cooper, D. A. (2012, November 2). Will the HSUS Make a Killing Off Hurricane Sandy? Retrieved December 2013, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/will-the-hsus-make-...

Defense, P. (n.d.). HSUS-ASPCA et al sued RICO. Retrieved December 2013, from Pet Defense:http://petdefense.wordpress.com/hsus-sued-racketeering-ball-dont-lie/

Donations to ASPCA - what are they used for? (2006, July). Retrieved December 2013, from Cat Forum:http://www.catforum.com/forum/36-cat-chat/99718-donations-aspca-what-the...

Fitzpatrick, D. (2012, June 15). Little of charity's money going to help animals. Retrieved December 2013, from CNN US: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/animal-charity-investigation/index.html

Freedom, C. (2008, October). 7 things you don't know about HSUS. Retrieved December 2013, from Consumer Freedom:http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Thin...

Fund, A. L. (2011, January). Animal Fighting Case Study: Michael Vick. Retrieved December 2013, from ALDF.org.

Glass Door. (2013, November 25). ASPCA Salaries. Retrieved December 2013, from Glass Door:http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/ASPCA-Salaries-E16463.htm

Grossi, N. (2010, February 28). In Non-Support of the Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved December 2013, from Zimbio.com:http://www.zimbio.com/Wayne+Pacelle/articles/tvPkvycDfU7/Non+Support+Hum...

GuideStar. (n.d.). American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Retrieved December 2013, from GuideStar: http://www.guidestar.org/PartnerReport.aspx?partner=justgivews&ein=13-16...

GuideStar. (n.d.). Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved December 2013, from GuideStar:http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/53-0225390/humane-society-united-...

HumaneWatch.org. (2013, December 4). Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train. Retrieved December 2013, from HumaneWatch.org: http://www.humanewatch.org/unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train-2013-edition/

Matt. (2009, November 11). ASPCA New York: using your donations to murder animals. Retrieved December 2013, from Pets Alive: http://petsalive.com/blog/2009/11/13/aspca-new-york-using-your-donations...

Navigator, C. (n.d.). Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved December 2013, from Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848#...

NPT. (2011, August 1). Animal groups barking at ASPCA. Retrieved December 2013, from The NonProfit Times: http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/animal-groups-barking-at-...

Progress, T. (2005, September 6). Katrina Timeline. Retrieved December 2013, from Think Progress:http://thinkprogress.org/report/katrina-timeline/

ProtecttheHarvest.com. (2013). HSUS Exposed. Retrieved December 2013, from ProtecttheHarvest.com:http://protecttheharvest.com/hsus-exposed/

Rasch, A. (2009). Where do HSUS contributions really go? Retrieved December 2013, from Rasch Outdoor Chronicles: http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/05/where-do-hsus-donations-really...

Robillard, K. (2012, October 3). 10 Facts About the Katrina Response. Retrieved December 2013, from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81957.html

SAOVA. (n.d.). Spay and Neuter the HSUS. Retrieved December 2013, from Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance: http://www.saova.org/spayneuterhsus.html

Serwer, A. (2012, February 28). The PR Man Behind the Oscar Night Anti-Humane Society Oscar Slam.Retrieved December 2013, from MotherJones.com: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/rick-berman-funded-oscar-night-s...

Society, H. (n.d.). Annual Reports and Financial Information. Retrieved December 2013, from Humane Society: http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_sta...

Society, H. (2012, February 27). The HSUS responds to CCF. Retrieved December 2013, from HumaneSociety.org: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/opposition/facts/response_ccf_ad.html

SPCA, N. (2013, Septemebr). personal communication. New Jersey, United States.

StopHumaneWatch.org. (n.d.). Myth: Wayne Pacelle Said... Retrieved December 2013, from StopHumaneWatch.org: http://stophumanewatch.org/blog/myths/myth-quote

Syufy, P. (2010, January 4). ASPCA Response to Sarah Mclachlan Ad Criticism. Retrieved December 2013, from About.com: http://cats.about.com/b/2010/01/04/aspca-response-to-sarah-mclachlan-com...

Watch, H. (2011, January 15). Meet the 2.6 million dollar man. Retrieved December 2013, from Humane Watch: http://www.humanewatch.org/meet_the_2-6_million_dollar_man/

Watch, H. (2012, January 12). What does the pet sheltering community really think about HSUS?Retrieved December 2013, from Humane Watch:http://www.humanewatch.org/what_does_the_pet_sheltering_community_really...

Wikipedia. (2013, November 29). American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Retrieved December 2013, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Crue...

Winograd, N. (2013, May 3). NathanJWinograd.com. Retrieved December 2013, from NathanJWinograd.com: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12845

 

 

Talking about lions .......

This is a blog post that is definately worth a late reblog for those who haven't seen it yet. Especially the second video is one that I can not watch without getting my eyes all moisty :D

Missing 14-year-old Jordan McNaughton found safe

A 14-year-old boy who went missing in Edinburgh has been found safe and well.



Police Scotland had appealed for information on Sunday to trace Jordan McNaughton who had been last seen in Glendevon Park around 5.15pm on Saturday. They confirmed on Sunday evening that he had been traced near the city centre.

Concern for 14-year-old schoolboy missing in Edinburgh

For those in Edinburgh, please look out for this boy

Shades of gray: can Wolves and Humans live together

Gray wolves once ranged across North America. But by the 1930s, they were nearly extinct -- trapped, poisoned and hunted by ranchers, farmers, and government agents. With protection under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the wolf population rebounded. But wolves lost federal protection in 2011.

 

Now, with hunting permitted in many Western states, the future of this once endangered species may again be in question. Can we live with wolves? Earth Focus travels to Montana and Wyoming to find out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCBKHPv9lT0

So one of the reasons that people are afraid of wolves is because the fear for attacks on livestock and/or Humans. How well founded is this fear? let's take a look at the facts, shall we?

I guess many Americans will be familiar with Politifact and the Oregon section had the following on fatal wolf attacks on Humans in the Rocky Mountain states

In a recent article in The Oregonian, Michelle Dennehy, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife, spoke some about those risks.

"Wolves have attacked and killed people in Canada and Alaska," Dennehy told The Oregonian. "It is extremely rare and has never happened in the Rocky Mountain states, but we advise people to keep your distance from wolves and any wild animals."

Oregon is home to an estimated 24 wolves, a small population. But a 2010 reportby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service puts the number of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain population (which includes Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon) at more than 1,650.

This got us wondering whether it could be true that there have been no documented cases of run-ins with wolves in that fairly large area. Plus, we’re always looking for a change of pace.

We started where we always start: the source. Dennehy pointed us to a 2002 report from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research called "The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans."

Because "the vast majority" of global wolf research happens in North America, the report says, wolf attacks in Canada and the U.S. have been extremely well documented. That documentation -- and the fact that attacks are so rare -- allowed the authors to detail every attack in the past century.

All told, the study’s authors found 18 wolf attacks in North America -- 12 in Canada and six in the U.S. Of the attacks in the U.S., four occurred in Alaska (as did an unspecified number of small incidents along a road where truckers had taken to feeding the wolves) and two in Minnesota, in which the victims weren’t injured. Two of the attacks in Alaska left the victim dead of rabies. Both of those happened in the 1940s.

Dennehy also sent us a news clip from a paper up in Saskatchewan that detailed the 2005deathof a young Ontario student who was on a walk near a Saskatchewan mining camp when he was attacked and killed. A sad story to be sure, but one that happened a ways away from the Rocky Mountains.

We try to be thorough, so we also placed a call to the International Wolf Center, an organization that tries to advance the survival of wolves through education.

We spoke to Jess Edberg, who is based in Ely, Minnesota. Minnesota has the most robust wolf population outside of Alaska.

"Overall, in North America and around the world, a wolf attack on humans is very rare," Edberg said. "In the lower 48, we haven't had any attacks on humans."
She added that many of the attacks that do occur often involve sick animals or animals who had been fed or allowed to become accustomed to humans.

Edberg did point out the Alaska Department of Fish and Game had recently concluded that a woman found dead in 2010 on the Alaska Peninsula was killed by wolves.

Finally, she sent us looking for two studies on wolves. One report, which shared an author with the first Norwegian report, looked at Scandinavia and found that over the past 300 years, 94 people have been killed by wolves. All of those cases, the report found, were before 1882 and most were children under the age of 12.

The second, more pertinent report, done in 2002, by Mark E McNay for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game looked at wolf attacks in Alaska and Canada and found that "despite (a) large and widely distributed wolf population, no human deaths have been attributed to wild, healthy wolves since at least 1900, and biting incidents or bluff charges are rare enough to warrant publication in scientific journals."

Of course, that report was published before the two deaths we mentioned above.

History and perception of wolf attacks worldwide

Europe

Map showing the number of wolf attacks in France by département from 1400 to 1918.

Map of Eurasia showing the distribution of wolf attacks, with blue indicating areas where both rabid and predatory attacks occurred, purple for purely predatory attacks and green for purely rabid ones.

Chart showing the hypothetical stages leading up to wolf attacks on humans in 15th-19th century Italy. While these factors are now largely absent in modern-day Europe, they are still present in rural India, where many attacks took place during the late 20th century.

In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean-Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by non-rabid wolves. Numerous attacks occurred in Germany during the 17th century after the thirty years war, though the majority probably involved rabid wolves. Although Italy has no records of wolf attacks after WWII and the eradication of rabies in the 1960s, historians examining church and administrative records from northern Italy's central Po Valley region (which includes a part of modern daySwitzerland) found 440 cases of wolves attacking people between the 15th and 19th centuries. The 19th century records show that between 1801-1825, there were 112 attacks, 77 of which resulted in death. Of these cases, only five were attributed to rabid animals. In Latvia, records of rabid wolf attacks go back two centuries. At least 72 people were bitten between 1992-2000. Similarly, in Lithuania, attacks by rabid wolves have continued to the present day, with 22 people having been bitten between 1989-2001. Around 82 people were bitten by rabid wolves in Estonia during the 18th to 19th centuries, with a further 136 people being killed in the same period by non-rabid wolves, though it is likely that the animals involved in the latter cases were a combination of wolf-dog hybrids and escaped captive wolves.

Russia and the Soviet Union

As with North American scientists later on (see below), several Russian zoologists after the October Revolution cast doubt on the veracity of records involving wolf-caused deaths. Prominent among them was zoologist Petr Aleksandrovich Manteifel, who initially regarded all cases as either fiction or the work of rabid animals. His writings were widely accepted among Russian zoological circles, though he subsequently changed his stance when he was tasked with heading a special commission after WWII investigating wolf attacks throughout the Soviet Union, which had increased during the war years. A report was presented in November 1947 describing numerous attacks, including ones perpetrated by apparently healthy animals, and gave recommendations on how to better defend against them. The Soviet authorities prevented the document from reaching both the public and those who would otherwise be assigned to deal with the problem. All mention of wolf attacks was subsequently censored.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="438"] Asian Hakurou by WildSpiritWolf[/caption]

Asia

In Iran, 98 attacks were recorded in 1981^] and 329 people were given treatment for rabid wolf bites in 1996. Records of wolf attacks in India began to be kept during the British colonial administration in the 19th century. In 1875, more people were killed by wolves than tigers, with the worst affected areas being the North West Provinces and Bihar. In the former area, 721 people were killed by wolves in 1876, while in Bihar, the majority of the 185 recorded deaths at the time occurred mostly in the Patna and Bghalpur Divisions. In the United Provinces, 624 people were killed by wolves in 1878, with 14 being killed during the same period in Bengal. In Hazaribagh, Bihar, 115 children were killed between 1910-1915, with 122 killed and 100 injured in the same area between 1980-1986. Between April 1989 to March 1995, wolves killed 92 people in southern Bihar, accounting for 23% of 390 large mammal attacks on humans in the area at that time. Police records collected from Korean mining communities during Japanese ruleindicate that wolves attacked 48 people in 1928, more than those claimed by boars, bears, leopards and tigers combined.

North America

There were no written records of wolf attacks on humans prior to the European colonization of the Americas, though the oral history of some Native American tribes confirms that wolves occasionally did kill humans. Tribes living in woodlands feared wolves more than their tundra-dwelling counterparts, as they could encounter wolves suddenly and at close quarters.Skepticism among North American scientists over the alleged ferocity of wolves began when Canadian biologist Doug Clark investigated historical wolf attacks in Europe and, based on his own experiences with the relatively timid wolves of the Canadian wilderness, concluded that all historical attacks were perpetrated by rabid animals, and that healthy wolves posed no threat to humans. Although his findings were later criticized for failing to distinguish between rabid and predatory attacks, and the fact that the historical literature contained instances of people surviving the attacks at a time when there was no rabies vaccine, his conclusions were nonetheless adopted by other North American biologists. This view subsequently gained popularity among laypeople with the publication of Farley Mowat's semi-fictional 1963 book Never Cry Wolf, with the language barrier hindering the collection of further data on wolf attacks elsewhere. Although some North American biologists were aware of wolf attacks in Eurasia, they dismissed them as irrelevant to North American wolves.

By the 1970s, the fear of wolves was largely counteracted by the emergence of a pro-wolf lobby aiming to change public attitudes towards wolves, with the phrase “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America” (or variations thereof) becoming the mantra of people trying to create a more positive image of the wolf. Although several non fatal attacks had been reported since 1985, it wasn't until April 26, 2000 when a 6-year-old boy survived an attack by a wolf in Icy Bay, Alaska that the assumption that healthy wild wolves were harmless became seriously challenged. The event was considered so unusual that it was reported in newspapers throughout the entire United States. Following the Icy Bay incident, biologist Mark E. McNay compiled a record in 2002 of wolf-human encounters in Canada and Alaska from 1915-2001. Of the 80 described encounters, 39 involved aggressive behavior from apparently healthy wolves and 12 from animals confirmed to be rabid.The first fatal attack in the 21st century occurred in 2005, when a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada by wolves that had been habituated to humans, while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.



basically..... there is no reason to fear a wolf attack however when in wolf country always be cautious. We all need to protest against this delisting and start protecting the wolf. One way of doing this is by supporting Wolf Haven International (and if you want more wolfhaven you might visit this blog done by one of their caretakers )

[caption id="724" align="aligncenter" width="575"] Wolf Haven International[/caption]

Utrecht, The letters of Utrecht (an eternal poem) and a brief history

The Letters of Utrecht

A poem for the future grows in the stones of the street in the center of the town of Utrecht, The Netherlands. One character per stone, one stone per week. Every Saturday a stone mason turns the next stone into the next Letter. In months words appear. With the years verses grow in the streets, extended by a different poet of Utrechts’ guild of poets every few years. Through the centuries the line of the poem will itself draw letters on the map of the changing city.

 

The poem continues for as long as someone is willing to contribute the next Letter as a gift to his town and its future citizens and link his or her name with a Letter by bearing the costs of its creation. The costs per Letter are expected to be around 100 Euro, including 10 Euro for a good cause. A consecutive number will help the sponsor find his/her letter, and count the weeks since the beginning of the year 2000. Contribute your Letter!

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="768"] the letters of Utrecht[/caption]

At the same time of the publication on the street the Letter appears on this website, with the name of the sponsor. The stone mason can engrave the name or initials of the sponsor in the side of the stone (invisible under the surface of the street).

The Letters of Utrecht were unveiled on June 2, 2012. The beginning of the poem of the Letters of Utrecht was predated to fictitiously start on New Year’s day of the year 2000. The first 648 characters were actually placed on May 30th and 31st, 2012. From June 2d, 2012 onwards the next character is hewn out of the next stone every Saturday.

Stichting Letters van Utrecht organizes the project, the fiscal authorities in the Netherlands mark it as a cultural organization for the general benefit (culturele ANBI). Gifts can be declared in a Dutch tax declaration.

The poem that the Letters of Utrecht spell out on the street is also published on this site (Dutch version, seeNederlands), up to the most recently hewn letter.

The parts not yet published in the street will remain secret. The poem will be extended by a different poet whenever required. It is never completed.

List of Letters, sponsors, dates and position.

The following is a rough translation of the poem:

Ruben van Gogh (Letters 1-124):
Je zult ergens moeten beginnen om het verleden een plaats te geven, het heden doet er steeds minder toe. Hoe verder je bent, hoe beter. Ga maar door nu,
You have to begin somewhere to give the past its place, the present matters ever less. The further you are, the better. Continue now,

Ingmar Heytze (Letters 125-240):
laat je sporen na. Vergeet de flits waarin je mag bestaan, de wereld is je stratenplan. Was er een tijd dat je een ander was: die ging voorbij.
leave your footprints. Forget the flash, in which you may exist, the world is your map. If there was a time when you where another: it went by.

Chrétien Breukers (Letters 241-374):
Je bent die ander al. Je bent, zoals je weet, van dit verhaal de spil. Dit is de eeuwigheid. Die duurt. Die heeft de tijd. Ga daarom op in je verhaal en zwelg. Vertel.
You are the other already. You are, as you know, the center of this story. This is eternity. It lasts. It has the time. Become one with your story and revel. Tell.

Alexis de Roode (Letters 375-532):
Vertel ons wie je bent met elke stap. In ons verhaal verdwijnen wij vanzelf, en enkel jij blijft over op den duur. Jij en deze letters, die uit steen gehouwen zijn. Zoals de letters op ons graf.
Tell us who you are with every step. In our story we vanish inevitably, only you remain in the long run. You and these letters hewn from stone. As the letters on our grave.

Ellen Deckwitz (Letters 533-682):
De barsten in de Dom. Naar de hemel opgestoken als een wijsvinger, om de schuldigen aan te duiden en meer tijd te eisen. Zodat we weer rechtop kunnen gaan, als mensen langs de gracht.
The cracks in the cathedral’s tower. Raised to heaven as an index finger, to identify the guilty and demand more time. So that we can walk straight again as humans along the canal.

Mark Boog (Letters 683-?)
Die naar hun voeten staren. …
Those staring at their feet. Look upwards! See Utrecht’s churches…

(roughly translated up to Letter 733

The History of Utrecht

Utrecht (/ˈjuːtrɛkt/; Dutch pronunciation: [ˈytrɛxt] ( listen)) is the capital and most populous city in the Dutch province of Utrecht. It is located in the eastern corner of the Randstad conurbation, and is the fourth largest city of the Netherlands with a population of 327,834 on 1 November 2013.

Utrecht's ancient city centre features many buildings and structures from the Early Middle Ages. It has been the religious centre of the Netherlands since the 8th century. Currently it is the see of the Archbishop of Utrecht, the most important Dutch Roman Catholic leader Utrecht is also the see of the archbishop of the Old Catholic church, titular head of the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), and the location of the offices of the main Protestant church. Until the Dutch Golden Age, Utrecht was the most important city of the Netherlands; then, Amsterdam became its cultural centre and most populous city.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"] Castle Vredenburg[/caption]

Utrecht is host to Utrecht University, the largest university of the Netherlands, as well as several other institutes for higher education. Due to its central position within the country, it is an important transport hub for both rail and road transport. It has the second highest number of cultural events in the Netherlands, after Amsterdam.

[caption id="719" align="aligncenter" width="800"] The academic building of the Utrecht University situated next to the Dom Church[/caption]

Origins (until 650)

Many of the features in Blaeu's 1652 map of Utrecht can still be recognised in the city center

Although there is some evidence of earlier inhabitation in the region of Utrecht, dating back to the Stone Age (app. 2200 BCE) and settling in the Bronze Age (app. 1800–800 BCE),the founding date of the city is usually related to the construction of a Roman fortification (castellum), probably built in around 50 CE. These fortresses were designed to house a cohort of about 500 Roman soldiers. Near the fort a settlement would grow housing artisans, traders and soldiers' wives and children. A line of such fortresses was built after the Roman emperor Claudius decided the empire should not expand further north. To consolidate the border the limes Germanicus defense line was constructed. This line was located at the borders of the main branch of the river Rhine, which at that time flowed through a more northern bed compared to today, along what is now the Kromme Rijn.

In Roman times, the name of the Utrecht fortress was simply Traiectum denoting its location at a possibility to cross the Rhine. Traiectum became Dutch Trecht. The U comes from Old Dutch "uut" meaning downriver. It was added to distinguish from the other Tricht, Maas-tricht. In 11th-century official documents it was then Latinized as Ultra Traiectum. Around the year 200, the wooden walls of the fortification were replaced by sturdier tuff stone walls, remnants of which are still to be found below the buildings around Dom Square.

From the middle of the 3rd century Germanic tribes regularly invaded the Roman territories. Around 275 the Romans could no longer maintain the northern border and Utrecht was abandoned. Little is known about the next period 270–650. Utrecht is first spoken of again centuries after the Romans left. Under the influence of the growing realms of the Franks a church was built in the 7th century within the walls of the Roman fortress during Dagobert I's reign. In ongoing border conflicts with the Frisians the church was however destroyed.

Centre of Christianity in the Netherlands (650–1579)

The Dom tower, with to the left behind it the remaining section of the Dom church. The two parts have not been connected since the collapse of the nave in 1674.

By the mid-7th century, English and Irish missionaries set out to convert the Frisians. The pope appointed their leader, Willibrordus, bishop of the Frisians; which is usually considered to be the beginning of the Bishopric of Utrecht. In 723, the Frankish leader Charles Martel bestowed the fortress in Utrecht and the surrounding lands as the base of bishops. From then on Utrecht became one of the most influential seats of power for the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands. The see of the archbishops of Utrecht was located at the uneasy northern border of the Carolingian Empire. Furthermore it had to compete with the nearby trading centre Dorestad, also founded near the location of a Roman fortress. After the downfall of Dorestad around 850, Utrecht became one of the most important cities in the Netherlands. The importance of Utrecht as a centre of Christianity is illustrated by the election of the Utrecht-born Adriaan Florenszoon Boeyens as pope in 1522 (the last non-Italian pope before John Paul II)Pope Adrian died one year later after his election and although he ordered to build the Paus Huize in Utrecht he never actually saw it.

Prince-Bishops

see also this wiki: Bishopric of Utrecht

When the Frankish rulers established the system of feudalism, the Bishops of Utrecht came to exercise worldly power as prince-bishops. The territory of the bishopric not only included the modern province of Utrecht (Nedersticht, 'lower Sticht'), but also extended to the northeast. The feudal system led to conflict, and the prince-bishopric was at odds with the Counts of Holland and the Dukes of Guelders. The Veluwe region was soon seized by Guelders, but large areas in the modern province of Overijssel remained as the Oversticht.

Clerical buildings

Several churches and monasteries were built inside, or close to, the city of Utrecht. The most dominant of these was the Cathedral of Saint Martin, inside the old Roman fortress. The construction of the present Gothic building was begun in 1254 after an earlier romanesque construction had been badly damaged by fire. The choir and transept were finished from 1320 and were followed then by the ambitious Dom tower. The last part to be constructed was the central nave, from 1420. By that time, however, the age of the great cathedrals had come to an end and declining finances prevented the ambitious project from being finished, the construction of the central nave being suspended before the planned flying buttresses could be finished. Besides the cathedral there were four collegiate churches in Utrecht: St. Salvator's Church (demolished in the 16th century), on the Dom square, dating back to the early 8th century. Saint John (Janskerk), originating in 1040; Saint Peter, building started in 1039 and Saint Mary's church building started around 1090 (demolished in the early 19th century, cloister survives). Besides these churches the city housed Saint Paul's Abbey. The 15th-century beguine monastery of Saint Nicholas, and a 14th-century chapter house of the Teutonic Knights.

Besides these buildings which were part of the official structures of the bishopric; an additional four parish churches were constructed in the city: the Jacobikerk (dedicated to Saint James), founded in the 11th century, with the current Gothic church dating back to the 14th century; the Buurkerk (Neighbourhood-church) of the 11th-century parish in the centre of the city; Nicolaichurch (dedicated to Saint Nicholas), from the 12th century and the 13th-century Geertekerk (dedicated to Saint Gertrude of Nivelles).

City of Utrecht

The location on the banks of the river Rhine allowed Utrecht to become an important trade centre in the Northern Netherlands. The growing town Utrecht was granted city rights by Henry V. in 1122. When the main flow of the Rhine moved south, the old bed, which still flowed through the heart of the town became evermore canalized; and a very rare wharf system was built as an inner city harbour system. On the wharfs storage facilities (werfkelders) were built, on top of which the main street, including houses was constructed. The wharfs and the cellars are accessible from a platform at water level with stairs descending from the street level to form a unique structure. The relations between the bishop, who controlled many lands outside of the city, and the citizens of Utrecht was not always easy. The bishop, for example dammed the Kromme Rijn at Wijk bij Duurstede to protect his estates from flooding. This threatened shipping for the city and led the city of Utrecht to commission a canal to ensure access to the town for shipping trade: the Vaartse Rijn, connecting Utrecht to the Hollandse IJssel at IJsselstein.

The end of independence

In 1528, the secular powers of the bishop over both Neder- and Oversticht – which included the city of Utrecht – were transferred to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, who became the Lord of the Seventeen Provinces (the current Benelux and the northern parts of France). This transition was not an easy one and Charles V tried to exert his power over the citizens of the city, who had achieved a certain level of independence from the bishops and were not willing to cede this to their new lord. Charles decided to build a heavily fortified castle Vredenburg to house a large garrison whose chief task would be to maintain order in the city. The castle would last less than 50 years before it was demolished in an uprising in the early stages of the Dutch Revolt.

Republic of the Netherlands (1579–1815)

Prince Maurits in Utrecht, 31 July 1618

In 1579 the northern seven provinces signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they decided to join forces against Spanish rule. The Union of Utrecht is seen as the beginning of the Dutch Republic. In 1580 the new and predominantly Protestant state abolished the bishoprics, including the one in Utrecht, which had become an archbishopric in 1559. The stadtholders disapproved of the independent course of the Utrecht bourgeoisie and brought the city under much more direct control of the Holland dominated leadership of the republic. This was the start of a long period of stagnation of trade and development in Utrecht, an atypical city in the new state, still about 40% Catholic in the mid-17th century, and even more so among the elite groups, who included many rural nobility and gentry with town houses there.

The city, which was held against its will in the states of the Republic, failed to defend itself against the French invasion in 1672 (the Disaster Year).

The lack of structural integrity proved to be the undoing of the central section of the cathedral of St Martin church when Utrecht was struck by atornado in 1674.

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 settled the War of the Spanish Succession.

Since 1723 (but especially after 1870) Utrecht became the centre of the non-Roman Old Catholic Churches in the world.

Modern history (1815–present)

In the early 19th century, the role of Utrecht as a fortified town had become obsolete. The fortifications of the Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie were moved east of Utrecht. The town walls could now be demolished to allow for expansion. The moats remained intact and formed an important feature of the Zocher plantsoen, an English style landscape park that remains largely intact today.

1960s style architecture at the Jaarbeursplein

Growth of the city increased when, in 1843, a railway connecting Utrecht to Amsterdam was opened. After that, Utrecht gradually became the main hub of theDutch railway network.

In 1853, the Dutch government allowed the bishopric of Utrecht to be reinstated by Rome, and Utrecht became the centre of Dutch Catholicism once more.

With the industrial revolution finally gathering speed in the Netherlands and the ramparts taken down, Utrecht began to grow far beyond the medieval center from the 1880s onward with the construction of neighbourhoods such as Oudwijk, Wittevrouwen, Vogelenbuurt to the East, and Lombok to the West. New middle class residential areas, such as Tuindorp and Oog in Al, were built in the 1920s and 1930s. During this period, several Jugendstil houses and office buildings were built, followed by Rietveld who built the Rietveld Schröder House (1924), and Dudok's construction of the city theater (1941).

During World War II, Utrecht was held by the Germans until the general German surrender of the Netherlands on 5 May 1945. Canadian troops that surrounded the city entered it after that surrender, on 7 May 1945.

Since World War II, the city has grown considerably when new neighbourhoods such as Overvecht, Kanaleneiland, Hoograven and Lunetten were built. Additionally the area surrounding Utrecht Centraal railway station and the station itself have been developed following modernist ideas of the 1960s, in a brutaliststyle. This led to the construction of the shopping mall Hoog Catharijne, music centre Vredenburg (Hertzberger, 1979), and conversion of part of the ancient canal structure into a highway (Catherijnebaan). Protest against further modernisation of the city centre followed even before the last buildings were finalised. In the early 21st century the whole area is being redeveloped. An architectural unique music palace is being constructed, that will be run jointly by Vredenburg, Tivoli and the SJU Jazzpodium.

Currently the city is expanding once more with the development of the Leidsche Rijn housing area.