I do not in any way think that a Swiss Brethren history would in any way be an inappropriate topic. It would in fact be the most appropriate realm of study for people in this area of the States. It is just that the term 'anabaptist' is generally considered to represent the entire "Radical Reformation" (as it is sometimes called by Protestants and 'Evangelicals'), and the fact that no persons of Dutch Mennonite heritage are included in the list of speakers may indicate that they are being ignored. A direct reference to the actual subject matter would simply be more accurate.Pelerin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 8:38 pmWhy do you say that? I’d always understood the Swiss Brethren were held by Anabaptists in general as the first instance of “us”—as opposed to others like Thomas Muntzer or the Zwickau prophets who came before and are sometimes lumped in but that we don’t consider “us”. For that matter Felix Manz, George Blaurock, and Michael Sattler all have entries in the (Dutch) Martyr’s Mirror.
The Dutch counterpart largely developed separately, although there may have been influences from the earlier Swiss beginnings. (Some Russian Mennonite historians of the early to mid 1800's maintained that the Dutch 'Baptism-Minded' movement, as they were called there, started mainly from Waldensian influences,)
Also, I saw no information as to what time periods are being covered. Our histories are almost entirely separate after some early interactions. The cultures of origin are different. The challenges faced were also different, due to the different countries to which they fled. Even the early leaders and writers are different, with nearly no cross-over at all.
