BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review <p>BMGN – <em>Low Countries Historical Review</em> is the leading academic journal for the history of the Netherlands, Belgium and their global presence. The journal publishes research about broad and important issues in the history of the Low Countries and seeks to do so in a wider comparative and international context. BMGN – <em>Low Countries Historical Review</em> aims to present the best historical scholarship of both junior and senior scholars. The journal accommodates all historical subdisciplines, covers the history of the Low Countries since the Middle Ages, and accepts contributions in Dutch and English.</p> en-US <p>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</p><p>a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</p><p>b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</p><p>c) Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.</p><p>Authors are explicitly encouraged to deposit their published article in their institutional repository.</p> (Editorial Office BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review) (openjournals) Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 OJS 60 Table of Contents, volume 135 (2020) - Inhoud jaargang 135 (2020) BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review Copyright (c) 2021 BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Struggling Over Healthy Lifestyles <p>In the second half of the twentieth century, advice on healthy living became pervasive in Western societies. While scholars have shown how the output of health educators echoed scientific consensus and ideas about ‘good citizenship’, the impact of their interactions with government and food industry representatives, and especially their complicated relationship with audiences, remains underexplored. This article centres the experiences of the staff of the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau – now known as the Centre for Nutrition (<em>Voedingscentrum</em>) – by examining health educators’ own observations about the efficacy of their work. Using sources such as internal guidelines, surveys, minutes of meetings, and annual reports, it demonstrates how the bureau struggled to position itself towards government ministries and commercial parties. Furthermore, it shows how unsuccessful attempts to reach the general population frustrated educators, and proposes that these struggles partially explain the transformation of the bureau’s lifestyle advice in the 1970s into a ‘healthist’ narrative about the responsibility of individuals. Hence, by analysing the complex interactions between health educators and other actors – in particular their audience – this article sheds light on the historical development of the genre of lifestyle advice.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Actualiteitsparagraaf</strong></p> <p><em>‘Je moet het zelf maar (w)eten’? </em><br /><em>Hoe het Nederlandse Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding de strijd tegen ‘overgewicht’ verloor</em><br /><br />Net als in 2017 zal het toekomstige nieuwe regeerakkoord ongetwijfeld een passage over ‘overgewicht’ bevatten. Zeventig jaar geleden zag het Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding, de voorloper van het huidige Voedingscentrum, de bui al hangen. De steeds dikker wordende Nederlander, zo waarschuwde dit Bureau al in de jaren vijftig, bracht de volksgezondheid in gevaar. In een artikel in <a href="">BMGN – <em>Low Countries Historical Review</em> 136 (1)</a> laat Jon Verriet zien hoe het Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding met miljoenen folders en gelikte filmpjes het tij in dit vroege stadium probeerde te keren. Uit archiefstukken blijkt echter hoe de voorlichters van dit Bureau, zelfs met hun alom bekende Schijf van Vijf, de Nederlandse burger maar moeizaam wisten te bereiken, mede door het gebrek aan steun vanuit het kabinet en de tegenwerking van de oppermachtige voedselindustrie. Het artikel volgt de groeiende frustratie van het enigszins hautaine Bureau (‘Waarom doet men niet zoals men wordt voorgelicht?’), en laat zien hoe de voorlichters in de jaren zeventig de strijd in zekere mate opgaven. Vanaf dat moment werd een gezonde levensstijl steeds vaker gepresenteerd als de verantwoordelijkheid van de burger zelf – een visie op gezondheid en ‘overgewicht’ waarmee we ook anno 2021 maar al te zeer bekend zijn.</p> Jon Verriet Copyright (c) 2021 Jon Verriet Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Snak, Claas and Bastiaan’s Struggle for Freedom <p>In the Dutch Republic slavery was not permitted on its soil in Western Europe. Enslaved people obtained their freedom by setting foot on Dutch soil. In 1776, the scope of this free soil principle was limited by a statute of the States General. From this moment onwards only slaves who remained in the Republic for longer than six months would automatically become free. In the literature, it was hitherto assumed that with the establishment of this statute the first debates about the scope of the free soil principle were initiated. This article demonstrates that this assumption is false. Previously, two court cases from 1735 and 1736, between two enslaved men from Curaçao and their masters, had already given rise to discussion. During these court cases, lawyers and judges elaborately debated the boundaries of the free soil principle. Did every enslaved person automatically obtain their freedom, or was, for instance, the permission of the master required to travel to the Dutch Republic? The two court cases give insight into what contemporaries thought about the free soil principle, thus shedding new light on the States General’s statute of 1776.</p> Tim van Polanen Copyright (c) 2021 Tim van Polanen Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Van de redactie – Redactioneel Dirk Jan Wolffram Copyright (c) 2021 Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Of Church Orders and Postmodernism <p>Self-avowedly influenced by the postmodernist critique of nineteenth-century ‘positivism’, Jesse Spohnholz's ambitious and multiple prize-winning 2017 <em>The Convent of Wesel: The Event that Never was and the Invention of Tradition</em> speaks at once to the political and institutional history of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands and northwestern Germany, to the role of archiving practices in shaping historical understanding, and to the nature of historical study. This review offers both an extended synopsis and a critique of the book. While recognizing its considerable achievement, it questions its framing of its findings about the Reformation era with reference to the ‘confessionalization’ debate, its reliance on a prefabricated narrative about archives as instruments of power and marginalization, and its mischaracterizations of post-Rankean historical practice and theory. Implications of the book’s findings for further research into the politics and personalities of the Reformation in the Low Countries are also suggested.</p> Philip Benedict Copyright (c) 2021 Philip Benedict Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200 A Response to Philip Benedict’s ‘Of Church Orders and Postmodernism’ <p>In this discussion of BMGN – <em>Low Countries Historical Review</em> Philip Benedict reviewed Jesse Spohnholz’s book, <em>The Convent of Wesel: The Event That Never Was and the Invention of Tradition</em> (Cambridge 2017). While Benedict praises Spohnholz’s research and contributions as they pertain to the religious history of sixteenthcentury Europe, he criticizes Spohnholz for borrowing from scholarship associated with the ‘archival turn’ and postmodernist critiques of constructivist empiricism. In this response, Spohnholz defends his approach and its relevance for questions about writing the history of the Reformation in the twenty-first century. Spohnholz stresses the shared historical and methodological perspectives between himself and Benedict (and others), comments on the historical significance of his study, and clarifies the book’s intended audiences.</p> Jesse Spohnholz Copyright (c) 2021 Jesse Spohnholz Tue, 30 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0200