The Dutch Once Owned This Isle

Summary

The Gist: The Dutch Once Owned This Isle Hosted by Mike Pesca | Produced by Peach Fish Productions | Released on March 17, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Gist, host Mike Pesca delves into a fascinating chapter of American history: the brief Dutch control over what is now New York City. Joining him is esteemed historian Russell Shorto, known for his insightful exploration of New York’s rich past. Together, they unravel the complexities of 17th-century colonial politics, the clash between Dutch and English ambitions, and the broader implications for modern political discourse.

Historical Context: The Fall of New Amsterdam

[00:00 - 09:02]
The episode begins with a brief introduction and a promotional segment for Pesca's subscription service, Pesca Plus, highlighting bonus features and extended content for subscribers.

[09:02 - 17:53]
Mike Pesca and Russell Shorto discuss the takeover of New Amsterdam by the English in 1664. Shorto introduces Richard Nichols, the English commander tasked with capturing the Dutch colony without unnecessary bloodshed. Unlike the often brutal conquests of the era, Nichols sought a more diplomatic approach, ultimately negotiating the peaceful transfer of the colony. This act of prudence preserved the vibrant, multicultural community of New Amsterdam, laying the groundwork for what would become New York City.

Notable Quote:
Russell Shorto reflects on Nichols’ approach:

“…it reads much more like a bill of rights. It says, you Dutch…we promise you, we'll keep your homes, you'll keep your families, your businesses…freedom of religion.”
[22:25]

DEI and Political Analogies

[17:53 - 27:56]
Pesca transitions into a contemporary analysis, drawing parallels between the historical event and modern political debates surrounding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). He criticizes current efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives, arguing that such actions often result in the destruction of beneficial programs. Pesca posits that, much like the Dutch, today's liberals must carefully calibrate DEI initiatives to prevent extremist ideologies from taking root.

Notable Quote:
Pesca warns about the consequences of neglecting DEI:

“If liberals won't correctly calibrate DEI, racists will.”
[05:48]

Insights on Leadership and Negotiation

[27:14 - 33:23]
Russell Shorto elaborates on the leadership styles of Richard Nichols and Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam. He emphasizes Nichols’ strategic negotiation skills, which avoided unnecessary conflict and preserved the colony's prosperity. Shorto contrasts this with the often adversarial nature of modern politics, advocating for a more nuanced and diplomatic approach to leadership.

Notable Quote:
Shorto on the essence of politics:

“You find some common ground and you build on that.”
[19:37]

Modern Implications: War, Politics, and Rhetoric

[33:23 - End]
The conversation shifts to contemporary foreign policy, specifically U.S. military actions against the Houthis in Yemen. Pesca critiques the Trump administration's aggressive rhetoric and actions compared to the more cautious approach of the Obama administration. He reflects on the lasting impacts of leadership styles on conflict outcomes, using the historical narrative as a lens to understand current events.

Notable Quote:
Pesca on Trump's approach:

“The Trump administration talks and acts with much feck, a bushel and a peck of feck, and he won't be scared to fucking tell you so.”
[30:56]

Conclusion

Mike Pesca and Russell Shorto conclude the episode by highlighting the enduring significance of historical events in shaping modern sociopolitical landscapes. They underscore the importance of thoughtful leadership and the dangers of extreme partisanship, drawing lessons from the peaceful transfer of New Amsterdam as a blueprint for contemporary governance.

Final Thought:
Shorto encapsulates the episode’s theme:

“It's not inevitable that the English would take this from the Dutch…you’ve got two enemies facing each other down…they both do what you're supposed to.”
[20:47]

---

Key Takeaways

1. Historical Prudence: Richard Nichols’ diplomatic approach in 1664 prevented unnecessary bloodshed and preserved the multicultural fabric of New Amsterdam, showcasing the power of negotiation over conflict.

2. Modern Parallels: The episode draws connections between 17th-century colonial politics and today’s debates on DEI, emphasizing the need for balanced and inclusive policies to prevent extremist ideologies from gaining traction.

3. Leadership Styles: Effective leadership, as demonstrated by both Nichols and Stuyvesant, relies on understanding and prioritizing the well-being of the community over rigid adherence to external directives.

4. Political Rhetoric: The discussion critiques contemporary political rhetoric, particularly the aggressive stance taken by the Trump administration, and advocates for a more measured and strategic approach to both domestic and foreign policy.

5. Lessons for Today: By examining historical events, listeners are encouraged to reflect on the importance of diplomacy, inclusivity, and thoughtful policy-making in today’s polarized political climate.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Russell Shorto [22:25]:
  “…it reads much more like a bill of rights. It says, you Dutch…we promise you, we'll keep your homes, you'll keep your families, your businesses…freedom of religion.”

• Mike Pesca [05:48]:
  “If liberals won't correctly calibrate DEI, racists will.”

• Russell Shorto [19:37]:
  “You find some common ground and you build on that.”

• Mike Pesca [30:56]:
  “The Trump administration talks and acts with much feck, a bushel and a peck of feck, and he won't be scared to fucking tell you so.”

• Russell Shorto [20:47]:
  “It's not inevitable that the English would take this from the Dutch…you’ve got two enemies facing each other down…they both do what you're supposed to.”

---

This episode of The Gist masterfully intertwines historical analysis with contemporary political commentary, offering listeners a rich tapestry of insights into both the past and present. Through the lens of New Amsterdam’s transfer, Pesca and Shorto illuminate enduring truths about leadership, negotiation, and the ever-evolving dynamics of power and policy.

Transcript

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm ready for my life to change.

[Mike Pesca]

ABC Sundays American Idol is all new.

[Russell Shorto]

Give it your all. Good luck. Come out with a golden ticket.

[Mike Pesca]

Let's hear it. This is immense world.

[Russell Shorto]

I've never seen anything like it.

[Mike Pesca]

And a new chapter begins.

[Russell Shorto]

We're going to Hollywood.

[Carrie Underwood]

Carrie Underwood joins Lionel Richie, Luke Bryant and Ryan Seacrest on American Idol News.

[Mike Pesca]

Sundays 8, 7 Central on ABC and stream on Hulu.

[Unknown Speaker]

Are your ulcerative colitis symptoms proving difficult to manage? Tremphaya Guselcamab can help you manage the cycle of UC symptoms. At one year, many patients taking Tremphya achieved clinical remission and some patients also achieved endoscopic remission. Individual results may vary. Tremphya is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tb. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu like symptoms or if you need a vaccine. Ask your doctor if Tremphya can help you manage the cycle of UC symptoms. Call 1-800-526-7736 to learn more or visit.

[Mike Pesca]

Trimfireadio.Com hi, I'm here to extol the virtues of Pesca plus now. Full disclosure, I am Pesca and and have been accused of being a little plus. But if you subscribe and you do so by going to subscribe.mike pesca.com you get all sorts of bonus features. We do extended interviews. We have a book club every other month. We had an amazing live event. I don't know if I'll ever replicate this, but it was a soiree, plus a discussion with members of the Fifth Column. And it's free for everyone who is a Pesca plus member. Now is the best time to get your membership approved. I have to tell you the approval process you're going to skate through. I know this because as I said before, I am the titular Pesca of Pesca plus. And of course, like all of our subscription services, all the podcasts will be ad free. But with Pesca plus, oh, so much more. Subscribe.Mike Pesca It's Monday, March 17, 2025 from Peach Fish Productions. It's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca. 60 Minutes had a wonderful piece last night about a student orchestra whose music was silenced because of the Trump DEI initiatives. Thirty young musicians, all members of ethnic minorities, were selected to play with the Marine Band. But because of the new DEI rules, the project had to be disbanded. Then 60 Minutes rebanded them.

[Carrie Underwood]

This past Sunday at the Music center at Strathmore near Washington, 22 students who had lost their chance to play tuned up with the military band veterans for the concert that was not meant to be heard.

[Mike Pesca]

This is one of those thoughtless, needless examples of excess when it comes to the war on dei. Another is Arlington National Cemetery's removal of information about black and women aviators and war heroes. Are you telling me the government couldn't rein in the excesses, which I've talked a lot about on the gist, without getting these obviously positive programs also axed? Well, of course they could, but that they don't is part of the point. But I also think it's inevitable that this would be another example of the chainsaw, not the scalpel. No Democrat could really reign in DEI given the requirements of remaining in good standing among the Democratic coalition. Hard for any Democrat to take that heat. Most wouldn't even want to. But no real momentum was going to come from a Democrat. So Republicans elected on a promise to rid the country of dei. Even if you say to yourself, well, some wouldn't be as extreme as Trump, I don't know any Republican would sense that DEI is extremely unpopular among the base and they, they'd want that hit of in party approval for going against it. David Frum said this extremely profound thing about immigration, but I think it's profound because it applies to so many aspects of government as a warning to extremists. From the original quote was if liberals won't enforce borders, fascists will. All right, and with this I, I say if liberals won't correctly calibrate dei, racists will. You could also say if pro government liberals won't rein in spending, anti government extremists will. If liberals won't protect children with prudent policies on gender, medicine, transphobes will. And on and on. The 60 Minutes piece culminated in a performance by the student orchestra, which is true, didn't have any white members. But it's not like the presence of this program hurt the ability of young white musicians to join the Marines or play in the Marine band or play in other orchestras or win scholarships for the existing ongoing many years long student competition that the Marines sponsor every year. This, this program was just an additional opportunity to try to increase the percentage of black musicians and orchestras from 2% to something higher. So why not? Who does it hurt? One young musician who 60 Minutes featured made the case for the program to continue.

[Unknown Speaker]

If we are a society that's suppressing art, we're a society that is afraid of what it might reveal about itself. If we're suppressing music, we're suppressing emotions, we're suppressing expression, we're suppressing vulnerability, we're suppressing the very essence of what makes us human. We are devaluing our own humanity, we're degrading our own humanity.

[Mike Pesca]

True enough, but without getting quite so deep or abstract. This was a 17 year old who just desperately wanted to play John Philip Sousa. Yeah, the guy who wrote Stars and Stripes Forever. Some of the orchestra members who are not allowed to play officially were Asian, some were black, some are Hispanic. So you're telling me that the case for promoting a 17 year old black or Hispanic kid playing John Philip Sousa, that case somehow runs counter to the goals of America or even the goals of deep red state America, Stars and Stripes Forever. Or until the administration wrecks another part of what makes America a pluralistic and shared experience. On the show today, spiel about the connection between tough talk and tough acts when it comes to the Trump administration and attacking the Houthis. Possibly Houthis. But first, Russell Shorto is my favorite chronicler of New York before anyone here spoke English. His last book was the island at the center of the World. And in case you're wondering which island he means, it's more clearly spelled out in his new book, Taking Manhattan. The extraordinary events that created New York and shaped America. He doesn't undersell it. It's true. Russell Shorto and I, by the way, have a shared history which he actually forgot about. Then I reminded him it's all next. Russell Shorto joins the gist. So I sit here in Brooklyn speaking to you as I do most days, Brooklyn, which is a from a Dutch word. And all around me are the Dutch influences of this place and Van Cortlandt park and the Van Wyck Expressway and Arthur Kill Road and Staten Island. And I never think about it. I never think about the Dutch ness of it all. But you know who does? Writer and historian Russell Shorto. What Robert Caro is to explaining LBJ or what Michael Pollan is to telling us to eat plants From a journalistic perspective, this is what Russell Shorto is to. To bringing the Dutch history of this land alive in 2025. Now he did so 20 years ago with his book the island at the center of the World. And he's out with a new book called Taking Manhattan the Extraordinary Events that Created New York and shaped America. Russell Shorto, welcome to the gist. Oh, also Russell and I have a shared history which we are going to get into. I'm going to remind him of. And it's not that I'm any part Dutch, but I will remind of it at the end of this interview. Russell, welcome to the gist.

[Russell Shorto]

Thank you, Mike. Happy to be with you.

[Mike Pesca]

You know, Richard Nichols is a name I literally had never heard of. And then I realized in reading your book that one of the reasons I was reading it in English was because maybe even without. We could even say without Richard Nichols, I wouldn't be reading it in English. Tell me who Richard Nichols was and what was he doing and where was he dropping anchor in 1664?

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah, I. You know, as a writer of history, I love to come upon people who you've never heard about, but who've done amazing things and then you get the chance to bring them back to life. Right. Richard Nichols is. So there's a Dutch. The Dutch founded a colony. Everybody knows New Amsterdam. It was New Amsterdam before New York. The Dutch founded a colony which was there for 40 years. And then the English said, oh, my gosh, that's the prime real estate. We want it. So they. They, meaning the King Charles II and his brother James, the Duke of York, send this flotilla of warships packed with soldiers, filled to the brim with gunpowder and armaments into New York harbor in the late summer of 1664. Richard Nichols is the guy who is commanding this mission. And. And it was a very complicated. We can get into a very complicated mission he had, part one of which was take this colony from the Dutch who were their arch rivals. And they basically just told him, do it. Figure out a way to do it. And they assumed that would be by bombing, leveling the place. So it was up to him to.

[Mike Pesca]

Figure out, because they'd been at war for quite a while. Yeah. Yeah. And when you say finding this name, Richard Nichols, this isn't a Howard Zine, people's Howard Zinn, people's history. Although there are people who. Who are just regular people, everyday people. Dorothea Angola. Is that her name?

[Russell Shorto]

That's right.

[Mike Pesca]

She's in the. Yeah, she's in the book. And Catherine Trico. These are just this. Not just. But these are the people, the citizens of New Amsterdam. And they're in the book. And we trace their stories. But Richard Nichols is the exact sort of person who should be remembered or classically has been remembered by. By history. Great military leaders, people who they would name a street or a fort after. Paint a portrait of why do you think? And we'll get to his success and how he achieved it. But why do you think he was all but lost to history when you first encountered the name? In researching maybe this book, was. Was he new to you?

[Russell Shorto]

Not new, because I've been writing about early New York history for a long time. But books about that subject, about early New York, they all kind of spend one or two sentences on him. Richard Nichols, he's the guy that took New York or took Manhattan from the Dutch, and Bob's your uncle. Then history gets going, you know, the.

[Mike Pesca]

English history, and then reality starts.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, yeah, I'd heard the name, and that was part of what. Once I decided to focus on this moment. You know, there's so many moments in history that we. That we just think are inevitable. Like that the Amer. That the colonies would win the revolution, you know, but when you get down in there on the ground, looking at it from the perspective of the people, which is what you. What I try to do when I write history, it's not inevitable. It was not inevitable that the. The English would take this from the Dutch and therefore start the, quote, original 13 English colonies. And when you do that, everybody you're there with, you know, this mixed community speaking 18 different languages and all that, at the tip of Manhattan island, staring down these cannons from these English ships, and they've got their cannons pointed at those ships, and you figure, okay, all hell's about to break loose.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. And he comes. His ship is the Guinea. Is that right?

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah.

[Mike Pesca]

Sails into New York harbor, and there appears to be. We're shaping up to a huge battle, a huge maritime battle, which is. And you talk about how the. These play out and how the cannonballs rip through ships, and you have many accounts of how these battles go down. It's well known what would happen. But you have, on the other side, Peter Stuyvesant himself. Now, Stuyvesant is known to history but somewhat misunderstood. And he has to more than strategize, which he has to do. He has to interpret. Right?

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah. And, you know, it's funny what you opened up, talking about Richard Nichols being all unknown. It's strange, and I don't quite know the answer to it, that in this case, the guy who, quote, loses, that is Stuyvesant is known. I mean, especially if you're a New Yorker. There's, you know, Stuyvesant High School, Stuyvesant Town, and, you know, Stuyvesant Place, and there's no Richard Nichols way or anything. You know, when I write history, I'm a storyteller, and I look for the Essence of that is two people in conflict. And you can't get any more in conflict than pointing their cannons at each other and each side. Then you back up, you know, who, who were each of these guys, who was behind them, who's around them, what's the wider geopolitical story? So you can pile all that, you can load all of that on, but if you, but you, from my perspective, you got to have that central tension.

[Mike Pesca]

What was Stuyvesant tasked with interpreting in that moment?

[Russell Shorto]

Stuyvesant had been the leader of this Dutch colony for 17 years. He was quite capable. He was very pig headed, but he was able to kind of get over that. You can see him over the course of his career coming to terms with his shortcomings. And he had been trying for years. He'd been writing the Dutch West India Company, which were the overlords of this colony, and saying, look, we have this colony here. We've got this thing called capitalism. Didn't exist as a word yet, but the Dutch kind of invented it at that time. We've got this mixed community at the tip of this island. We are right beside this continent, which we can exploit infinitely, but you have to support us, you have to send us soldiers. We need more settlers. We need equipment, manufactured goods. And he was rebuffed. They just ignored him. And not only Stuyvesant, but his whole population, 1500 people in this little community all knew that was the case. One of his complaints was the English are coming in droves into New England to the north of us and Virginia and Maryland to the south of us. And they're even.

[Mike Pesca]

Right. Boston had 3,000 people.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah. And they're even sailing across Long Island Sound from Connecticut, landing in the eastern Long island and moving toward the city that way. So he was feeling that pressure. And now here comes this, this, these warships.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. So I guess the first example of gentrification in Manhattan. So at this point, and you do make the case, he's torn in a few directions. He, like many leaders, has many constituencies, but he's been in power for almost 20 years or is at least been in charge of New Amsterdam. And he does work for the India Company and he is a subject of the Dutch Crown. But you make the case that he's what he is mostly identifying as, as Manhattanite or New Amsterdamian. He is loyal to his subjects and his city. Right.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah, I think, I mean, that's what I argue when, when the story that plays out, it's this tense two week standoff between these English ships and The Dutch and their fort and the Dutch soldiers. And at several points, either Stuyvesant or Nichols basically says, that's it, we're opening fire. And then something happens to pull them back. And what Stuyvesant is dealing with then is this question of loyalty. And as you say, he had obligations to the West India Company, he had obligations to the Dutch government, and those were two different things, but ultimate. And both of those said, defend this place at all costs. But he had lived for 17 years. He had become this quite creative leader. He had raised a family in Manhattan. He knew everybody by name, everyone in town, probably every enslaved person, everything. So ultimately he comes to the decision that his greater loyalty is to this place, this community and what they built. And he decides that the, the way to preserve what they built is ironically, to give it over to these people who were essentially their archenemies.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, this is one of the greatest acts of, I would say, wise, four sided, non temperament, mental, quite in contrast with the reputation of Cyberson. Again, wise actions, prudent actions in American. What would be American history, world history, and until your book, I never even realized it. Do you see it that way? Just nine out of 10 leaders who get that way because of military experience would have been forced or forced themselves to fight.

[Russell Shorto]

Both of these men on both sides, Richard Nichols and Stuyvesant had, were battle hardened. They knew war, they knew as a way to, you know, solve problems. And I can't help but look at this story and this standoff in light of what's going on today in this country. Because here you have two enemies facing each other down. And for their own reasons, they both do what you're supposed to. You know, while I was working on this book, I'm reading books about negotiation and you know, what you do. What, what do I want to get out of this? What do I absolutely need? What's the minimum I need to get out of it? What does my opponent absolutely need to get out of it? Can I look? Can I treat them as a human being who deserves to go on and live too? So that's what they do. And that's what I mean. That's the essence of politics. Or it's supposed to be. At least the way, the way I understood it, you find some common ground and you build on that.

[Mike Pesca]

Yes, well, war is politics by other means. But back then, politics was war. Everything was war. And these guys choosing not at least in this moment to commit to war was, I said, farsighted. But who do you think would have won? Quote, unquote 1.

[Russell Shorto]

That is a really good question, because the way the history is told, the English came barreling in there and the Dutch just rolled over because they had no choice. In fact, Stuyvesant later, once he, you know, signs off and gives this over to the English, of course, the Dutch government and the West India Company are mad as hell at him. They recall him, put him on trial. He brings, like, a case full of supporting material. He gets depositions from soldiers. And these soldiers, to a man say, we were, you know, in that fort. We know how to defend. It's easier to defend than to attack. And we were battle hardened soldiers. And most of the people that Nichols had on the English side, we could see them across on the Brooklyn shore. They were farmers from Long island and things. They're holding pikes and all that. So we could have taken them. I mean, so it's an interesting question of who would have won.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, it probably is the case that who would have won. The answer is no one. But you don't find that out until you commit to rounds and rounds of carnage. That's. That's his lesson, I think.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah. And from Nichols side, he. He started when he was still in London preparing for this. He was interviewing people who had lived in the Dutch colony, people who had worked under Stuyvesant in his government. So he's learning what this place is. And the whole reason I wrote this book, which is a follow up to my book, the island at the center of the World, which I wrote 20 years ago, is that the translation project, the translating the records of the colony in Albany, New York, in recent years, has come to translate the material related to this period. So you see what a vibrant little, you know, New Amsterdam looked kind of like a Wild west town, but with little Dutch elements, you know, like gables and windmills and things. But what a vibrant place it was that had trade networks to the Caribbean and South America and West Africa and all over Europe. That's what Nichols saw and he didn't. He ultimately. And again, he's on the ground, or rather on the water in the harbor, and he has to decide how to do this. And he decides he doesn't just want the real estate. He wants whatever it is that makes this place tick. And the reason and then the way to do that is to come up with something that will appease his opponent.

[Mike Pesca]

Oh, to appease his opponent. So what was the appeasement tactic?

[Russell Shorto]

It was. What they hashed out is sometimes called the Articles of Surrender. But if it was Articles of Surrender, you would see things in there like, you're going to be disarmed. And there are these onerous burdens. It reads much more like a bill of rights. It says, you Dutch. And by that I don't just mean Dutch, because it was a mixed community. But you people of New Amsterdam, we promise you, we'll keep your homes, you'll keep your families, your businesses, by all means, you're going to keep your global trade networks. You know, Dutch ships can keep coming in, so. And, you know, they say things like, we promise there won't be any soldiers quartered on you. You'll have freedom of religion. So they give them all this, and they do, because they know that's what the Dutch want. But it's also what he wants, what Richard Nichols wants, because then he's going to get. You know, this capitalism thing was new to the rest of the world, but the Dutch have been practicing it now for a few decades. And that combined with this, this mixed society, which was also an unusual thing at that time, those two things together are a recipe for success. Nichols sees it, but he doesn't know how to recreate that. So he wants to appease them because he wants them to flourish in a new place that he's going to name New York.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, we're not so different, you and I. Moment. Now, here's a theory of mine, or a supposition, as you write in the book. All the wars, everything that led to bloodshed, it was all based on religions, even religions that we barely see as separate these days. And I'm not even talking about Catholicism and Protestantism, just strains of Protestantism. They'd be at each other's throats, leading to carnage after carnage. The emergence of capitalism, you could argue it gives people something else to focus on, but it is a replacement of the driving force of identity that religion was. So, to some extent, it's not a coincidence that this sort of negotiation, which, by the way, the English and the Dutch, two different religions, it's not a coincidence that this took place against the backdrop of capitalism. Capitalism for all its sins and flaws. And you detail a lot about the slave trade and about ripping off the indigenous populations. It did, I would say, lead to some sort of short circuiting of the religious or existing animosities of the period.

[Russell Shorto]

Do you think that is a really interesting theory? And if you haven't written a book about that, you might, you might consider it.

[Mike Pesca]

They say. They say most books are better off as articles. Most books are better off as sentences.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah, start with that. But No, I think there is definitely something to that, because that's what takes hold in. In the Dutch provinces in the 17th century. And as it takes hold, you see, I mean, it's still a religious. I mean, everybody in Europe, Western Europe, was religious at the time, but it's still a religious society. But you can see what you might call secularism taking hold. And with that comes a. A lessening of religious orthodoxy. And there remained in the Netherlands this battle throughout the course of the century between the Orthodox party and the. I guess you would say the Progressive party. But overall, as a society, you don't have, like, they're not burning witches and that sort of thing. And they have this official policy of toleration of religious differences which is built into their constitution, which was strange in the rest of Europe because it was common sense in Europe at the time that it's a dangerous world out there. And in order for a society to be strong and stable, everybody had to be on the same page. So you had a state religion. So the Dutch create, improbably, probably the greatest economic powerhouse of the era. And they do it by flipping that logic on its head, by, you know, inviting other people in, by going to other. You know, traveling to other ports, speaking different languages, learning their ways.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, yeah. And you also make a great point. Well, why the Dutch? Why did the Dutch. Why were they the exception to how societies were structured? A lot has to do with living in a place that could be flooded all the time. So instead of relying on the Lord to have his manner, you had to keep these smaller homesteads. And this led to, essentially, capitalism and people owning their own homes and having to care for them.

[Russell Shorto]

Yeah, A lot of. A lot of history has its roots in geography. And the. The Dutch provinces are basically one vast river delta, and they were very late to be settled. It was in the Middle Ages, you know, whereas, you know, Rome and Greece, Quebec, millennia. So it was only in the Middle Ages that people from other parts of Europe start to settle there. And when they do. Oh, here in the spring, the river floods and your crops are suddenly underwater. So instead of leaving, I guess a lot of them left. But those who stayed banded together in communities, and they built dams and dikes to protect the community. And in doing so, they created this.

[Mike Pesca]

Well, that was fun. You know what's more fun? New Hampshire Opera House, 2004. A vicious takedown of a noisy interloper. The guy in the middle of it all is good enough, is smart enough, and doggone at people like him to figure out what I'm talking about join pesca plus go to subscribe.mike pesca.com you'll get bonus segments like this one where I remind Russell Shorto of the time we were together and we saw a violent and formative action. Subscribe.mike pesca.com you get an ad free version of the show or an ad free and bonus segmented version of the show for low, low prices. I suggest you go there to figure out the mystery behind that opera House in 2000. Foreign now the spiel over the weekend the US hit Houthi targets in Yemen, killing 53. According to the Houthi run health ministry, the US said it will continue attacking the Houthis as long as the Iranian backed rebel group continues to attack shipping in the Red Sea. White House national security Adviser Mike waltz was on ABC's this Week. This week he was asked to compare these recent strikes to the ones that occurred during the Biden administration. Well, thank you. And the difference is these were not kind of pinprick back and forth what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. Yes, operating without fec, big sin according to the current administration. But I did get to wondering how much more forceful or aggressive were the Trump strikes compared to Biden's? And the answer is actually significantly, the Biden administration, along with Great Britain did also launch airstrikes against the Houthis, but their targeting was in fact less aggressive. The International Institute for Strategic studies said the U.S. and its partners struck the Houthis over 260 times through December of 2024. And to quote the AP, analysts believe officials largely back then were trying to avoid civilian casualties and not rekindle Yemen's stalemated war. Well, Trump and his administration were not so careful when it comes to chronicling changes in rules of targeting and engagement under Donald Trump. It's sometimes hard to separate actual changes in bombing tactics from bombastic rhetoric. But it does seem that this latest salvo wasn't just of the figurative kind. I do remember in 2019, Trump had campaigned on being a tougher son of a bitch against ISIS than Obama ever was. You remember how he would often phrase it.

[Carrie Underwood]

Somebody criticized me the other day because they asked me what I do and I said I'm going to bomb the shit out of them. It's true. I don't care. I don't care. They've got to be stopped.

[Mike Pesca]

But I remember thinking as the war against ISIS was rejoined, was the Obama administration really taking it easy on isis? Was there a whole lot they weren't doing to Uproot isis. I know Trump says they were doing less. And the one arm tied behind his back image, I guess, goes a long way lodging in the minds of voters. But I also know that Obama commissioned many more drone strikes in Afghanistan than George W. Bush, and Republicans were calling him weak back then. So my question at the time being, how much easier did Obama take it on isis? It took a while for the answer to emerge, but here is the answer. Obama did take it a bit easier. Michael R. Gordon, who is one of, if not the, premier chronicler of America's war on isis, wrote four books on the subject. And he says that while the rules of engagement didn't change from Obama to Trump, some things did. For instance, the lead general wanted to set up an Apache attack helicopter base in Syria to go after isis. No, said the ever cautious Obama. And here Michael Gordon details what the state of play was.

[Unknown Speaker]

The Obama administration was moving carefully. And so what they agreed is he could have three Apache helicopter, three helicopters in Syria for 72 hours at a time. It was a certain degree of micromanagement and again, it was risk mitigation on the part of the Obama White House. But it was frustrating for the commanders in the field. That kind of thing was removed under the Trump administration by people like HR McMaster who had been on the battlefield, didn't see the need for it. So Trump didn't change the rules of engagement. That never happened. I've talked to all the commanders, they'll tell you that on your podcast. What happened is the White House removed a degree of micromanagement of the campaign that existed under Obama and Susan Rice. And as a consequence, the irony is Trump executed the Obama strategy more efficiently than Obama himself, simply because Obama, he, he remained aloof from it.

[Mike Pesca]

In other words, Trump didn't bomb the shit out of them or attack helicopter the shit out of them. He just gave the generals what they wanted and then let the generals alone. It's interesting because Trump is careful to emphasize how against war he is, but given the choice between risking escalation and avoiding all out assault, he'll often take the risk. But you know, maybe that's not actually a hypocritical stance. Maybe that's not pro war, but against dragging on conflicts that have no finality. Or maybe it just is incautious risking this greater retaliation. ISIS was all but destroyed under Trump in a way that it wasn't under Obama, or more accurately, in a way that it seemed to be under Obama. But then they experienced a resurgence. We'll see how the Houthi exchanges play out. I'm not so foolish as to be duped by Trump and his tough talking rhetoric, but I'm also not so off put by the rhetoric to think that it's only just tough talk. In any case, you know, the Trump administration talks and acts with much feck, a bushel and a peck of feck, and he won't be scared to fucking tell you so. And that's it for today's show. The gist was produced by Cory Wara and Michelle Pesca is the CBSO in Peru. G Peru do Peru. Thanks for listening.