Wikipedia

Talk:Dutch people/Archive 10

< Talk:Dutch people
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Fram in topic Conclusions RfC
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

RfC on how to define the Dutch as an ethnic group, and what to include

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article (and the talk page) have seen lengthy discussions (for years now) about what defines the Dutch as an athnic group, and which groups should or shouldn't be included (with the focus mainly on the status of the Flemings). This RfC should help to find solutions for two basic aspects of the article: what is the definition (or are the definitions) of the Dutch people as an ethnic group? Who should be included, and how? Fram (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Latest comment: 14 years ago133 comments4 people in discussion

I would propose that we try to ignore what has happened so far, and start from scratch: we need to establish the basics here, before further refinements and improvements can be made. I would like a discussion, based on reliable, independent sources, not on opinions, about two basic aspects. I would like to split this into two discussions, presented below. Fram (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Are there sources defining the Dutch as an ethnic group by characteristics. culture, language, descent, nationality, religion, self-identification, ...? Can some common elements be found, and how do we present this? Fram (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics

  • In a somewhat (well, perhaps even highly) popularising source, Volksgebruiken in Nederland (1981), cultural anthropologist J.L. de Jager first notes that in many respects, the civilizing process in the Netherlands differred little from that of the neighbouring great countries. To concentrate on the more typical traits, however, he says that in the view of foreign commentators the Dutch are/were generally considered "ill-mannered, rough, boorish, discourteous; or, in summary: informal". One explanation is found in the historical absense of a central court or administrative centre from which 'good manners' were forcefully propagated. As for social stratification, he notes that the absence of a strong nobility in the sea provinces (due to their late establishment) and the comparatively weak ecclesiastical authority allowed for the unopposed development of the merchant's class which became so powerful in the early modern period. Further historical characteristics of Dutch society are a great degree of tolerance, and, on a more intimate level, the early presence of bourgeoisie family life (="het burgerlijk gezin") with modern-looking interpersonal relationships. (16th- and 17th-century foreign writers commented disapprovingly on the boldness of the women, which they found misplaced, and the rudeness of the children.) A process of increasing formalization in the 19th and early 20th centuries was reversed in the 1960s, until society had become more informal than elsewhere by the 1980s (the example of the student interacting with the teacher on almost equal terms is mentioned). De Jager also makes reference to the fact that the social and political history of the Netherlands has always been a relatively bloodless affair. (De Jager 1981, pp. 13-18) Iblardi (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

_____

Sources
De Jager 1981 = J.L. de Jager, Volksgebruiken in Nederland. Een nieuwe kijk op tradities
Levinson 1998 = David Levinson, Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook
Nijman 2005 = J. Nijman, "Cultural globalization and the identity of place: the reconstruction of Amsterdam", in Nicholas R. Fyfe, Judith T. Kenny (eds.), The urban geography reader, 93-102
Pettigrew & Meertens 2003 = T.F. Pettigrew and R.W. Meertens, "The Verzuiling Puzzle: Understanding Dutch Intergroup Relations", in J. Stone, R. Dennis (eds.) Race and ethnicity: Comparative and theoretical approaches, 114-124
Schryer 1998 = Frans J. Schryer, The Netherlandic presence in Ontario: pillars, class and Dutch ethnicity

Various contemporary

  • Van der Zeijden 2007, p. 59, speaks of a recent fragmentation of Dutch society along ethnic lines as one of the reasons for a renewed public interest in popular culture and folklore. Iblardi (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • On the relationship between Dutch ethnicity and descent: in Pettigrew & Meertens 2003 it is stated that, due to successful assimiliation which was facilitated by their fluency in Dutch, familiarity with Dutch culture, and widespread marriage into native Dutch families, today "Eurasians are no longer considered a minority group, either officially or unofficially". Iblardi (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source Schryer 1998 speaks of the same group identifying themselves as 'Dutch', states that African Caribbeans with a Dutch linguistic and cultural background can arguably be considered more 'Dutch' than many acculturated emigrants, and notes that, in general, the dynamics of ethnicity associated with migration should be distinguished from those that result from primary state formation. Iblardi (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Likewise, in Blom & Lamberts 2006 it is stated that, partly due to post-medieval migrations, "the unity of the Low Countries cannot be found in collective descent from a homogeneous ethnic group". Iblardi (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source Joosen 2008 notes that "most folktales told in Dutch probably did not originate in the Dutch-speaking areas but were borrowed from books and other cultures". Source Meder 2008 answers negatively to the question whether there exist are any typically Dutch folktales. However, the source does mention two tales that probably originated in the Netherlands and states that any tale, when told in a particular language, becomes "typical" in a way, language being an important marker of identity. On the other hand, source Wildhaber 1972 says that the Volkskunde-atlas was set up as a joint effort by the Netherlands and Flanders, "both having the same language and the same culture". Howevever, in source Meder & Venbrux 2004, it is maintained that the idea of studying folktales as an authentic expression of regional cultures has been given up by contemporary ethnology, and that the focus has shifted to individuals and social groups instead. Iblardi (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

_____

Sources
Blom & Lamberts 2006 = J.C.H. Blom, Emiel Lamberts (eds.), History of the Low Countries, Epilogue, 471-486
De Jager 1981 = J.L. de Jager, Volksgebruiken in Nederland. Een nieuwe kijk op tradities
Joosen 2008 = Vanessa Joosen, "Dutch tales", in Donald Haase, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales and Fairy Tales, 282-284
Meder 2008 = T. Meder, The flying Dutchman and other folktales from the Netherlands
Meder & Venbrux 2004 = T. Meder & E. Venbrux, "Authenticity as an analytic concept in folkloristics: a case of collecting folktales in Friesland", Etnofoor XVII, 199-214
Pettigrew & Meertens 2003 = T.F. Pettigrew and R.W. Meertens, "The Verzuiling Puzzle: Understanding Dutch Intergroup Relations", in J. Stone, R. Dennis (eds.) Race and ethnicity: Comparative and theoretical approaches, 114-124
Schryer 1998 = Frans J. Schryer, The Netherlandic presence in Ontario: pillars, class and Dutch ethnicity
Van der Zeijden 2007 = Albert van der Zeijden, "Public Folklore and the construction of a regional identity in newly reclaimed Dutch polders (1945-1970)", in Peter Jan Margry, Herman Roodenburg (eds.), Reframing Dutch culture: between otherness and authenticity, 59-81
Wildhaber 1972 = Robert Wildhaber, "Folk Atlas Mapping", in Richard M. Dorson (ed.), Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction, 479-496

Historical

Early Middle Ages
Later Middle Ages

Is it justified to speak of a specifically Dutch identity in the Later Middle Ages?

  • On the artificiality of treating the medieval Netherlands more or less as the territorial unity that it later became: Gosses/Post 1959, p. 1-2 (translated from Dutch): "It is not entirely reasonable in view of the political relationships of the 13th century and certainly not with respect to those of the 14th century to treat as the subject of one and the same discussion precisely those territories that were later to form the state of the Netherlands. Naturally there existed regular contact and common characteristics among states that were situated along, partly even across each other, but this is true for any close-lying group. It is only with a view to a future, not yet to be foreseen at that time, that they are combined. And what is thus shown to the viewer is sometimes [...] misleading. [...] the rulers of Guelders appear to stir only at the western and northern sides of their territory [...]. [...] Here, political unification of the provinces was effected by the Burgundian dukes. Mutual attraction did not play a perceptible role; they were wrapped together with a dynastic tie." Iblardi (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The LexMa has, under "Niederlande": "Der Begriff der N. ist in ma. hist. Quellen unbekannt." "The region between the Somme und Ems, centered around the Rhine, Scheldt and Meuse had not yet found a strong cultural identity which expressed itself in the application of a common name." "Only after c. 1540 the spoken and written language of these regions was perceived more clearly as a unity and was described as 'Nederduytsch'/'Nederlantsche tale'"; before that time, the inhabitants referred to their language either as dialects of specific fiefs/principalities/provinces ("Vlaems", "Brabantsch") or, together with what we now call German, as a more general "Duytsch" or "Dietsch". Iblardi (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953], p. 171, on self-identification, and on medieval regionalism (translated from Dutch): "...but at that time an ethnonym [Du. volksnaam, litt. "name for a people"] "Netherlanders" was common neither among foreigners nor among the inhabitants themselves. Abroad they were called, and called themselves, ... Burgundians, Belgae, or Flemings, Fiamminghi [...] but they prefered to call themselves [...] Hollander, Frisian, Henegouwer [=inhabitant of Hainault]..." Iblardi (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The above view seems to be the most common. However, source Duke 2009 mentions a 1986 study by Piet Avonds which suggests an early existence of some form of supraregional Netherlandish solidarity. This is partly based on a 1339 treaty of mutual assistance between the cities of Flanders and Brabant. Iblardi (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

_____

Sources
Arnade 1997 = Peter Arnade, "Urban Elites and the Politics of Public Culture in the Late-Medieval Low Countries", in M. Carlier, A. Greve, W. Prevenier and P. Stabel (eds.), Hart en marge in de laat-middeleeuwse stedelijke maatschappij/Core and periphery in late medieval urban society, 33-50
Blockmans 2006 = W.P. Blockmans, "The formation of a political union, 1300-1588", in J.C.H. Blom, Emiel Lamberts (eds.), History of the Low Countries, 55-142
Duke 2009 = Alastair Duke, Dissident identities in the early modern Low Countries, edited by Judith Pollmann, Andrew Spicer
Gosses/Post 1959 = I.H. Gosses, R.R. Post, Handboek tot de staatkundige geschiedenis der Nederlanden. 1. De Middeleeuwen
Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953] = J. Huizinga, Verspreide opstellen over de geschiedenis van Nederland
LexMa = Lexikon des Mittelalters Online. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009
Habsburg Netherlands and Dutch Revolt

Did the 16th-century Netherlands form a cultural and linguistic unity?

  • The following sources indicate that the political incorporation of the eastern provinces into the Habsburg Netherlands and later into the Republic preceded the ethnic, linguistical, cultural and economic assimilation of those provinces with the rest of the Netherlands: (translations to be provided later)

-Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953]: "But the periphery of the diocese did not constitute a cultural boundary. The linguistic ties and economic relationships pointed the entire Saxon area to the east rather than the west." (p. 171) "Guelders was the only province that" [through a 'common destiny' with Jülich and Cleves] "had remained more purely German." (p. 173) "... here, too, from now on ... the political alignment furthered the mutual ethnographic and cultural assimilation, and a sealing off from Germany. As late as the middle of the 16th century, differences in language and habits between rural Groningen (=Stad en Lande) on the one hand and Holland on the other were greater than those between Groningen and Ostfriesland or Oldenburg; likewise, those between Guelders and Holland were greater than those between Guelders and Jülich." (p. 175, translated from Dutch) Iblardi (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

-Likewise in Kooij 1987: "The first to be offered sovereignty was count Edzard of Ostfriesland. [...] Only with the arrival of Charles V ... it became clear that the region of Groningen was to become a province of the Netherlands. Before that, incorporation into some sort of German confederacy was much more probable." (tr. from Dutch, p. 4) Iblardi (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

-Feenstra 2008: explains that in the eastern and northern provinces, there was at first little sympathy for what they considered an illegal revolt against the lawful sovereign, Philip II, and that their subsequent incorporation into the Union was primarily the result of war. The populace was mostly catholic, with strong social and economical ties with the Holy Roman Empire. (p. 17) The north-eastern regions were "mentally not yet a province of the Netherlands". Cultural influence from Holland did get stronger in the course of the 17th century, although a strong influence from the German lands also persisted. "For a long time, however, the everyday language of the eastern and northern provinces remained the local dialect, which was strongly related to the regional language of Northwest Germany." Iblardi (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

-Feenstra 2007 says that for centuries after 1594, Groningen remained a transitional area between Holland and northern Germany, not quite Dutch and not quite German, which was slowly penetrated by the culture of Holland (p. 160), with the city of Groningen for a long time retaining a more "German" hanzeatic outlook than Emden. The organisational pattern of the cities of Groningen, Overijssel and Gelderland can best be described as "Oost-Nederlands/Noordwest-Duits". Iblardi (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

-WPGN 1977 (not linked to text), when speaking of the Dutch-German linguistic border, says that it is not really known if by the later Middle Ages there existed any clear 'Dutch' linguistic conscience, but considers it not very probable that this would have been the case. It also says that documents from Hamburg (in Low German) were perfectly intelligible for the inhabitants of Deventer and vice versa, and that there was a gradual takeover by Dutch proper in this region from the 16th century onward. (p. 241) Iblardi (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Batavian Myth
  • Frijhoff & Spies 2004 speak of Holland's 17th-century Batavian Myth as a provincial (rather than a national) myth with "almost ethnic features". In Margry & Roodenburg 2007 the same myth is spoken of as having both a proto-national and an ethnic dimension (in being of interest to early Dutch ethnologists studying ethnic continuity). However, no further details are given. Iblardi (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • De Vos 1995 (p. 24) describes the Batavian Myth as an ethnic phenomenon: "Some of the newly added chapters discuss how ethnic identity is fabricated and for what purposes." "A striking example of fabricated identity is described in detail by the historian Schama (1987). He describes how, in the sixteenth century, certain dedicated Calvinist scholars helped create, for inhabitants of the provinces of the newly independent northern Dutch Republic, a single mythological origin involving a folk hero and his followers coming west to build dikes against the North Sea from Batavia, a small isle lying between the Rhine and the Waal rivers. This 'Batavian' identity helped mark off the Dutch and justified for them a special religious-political-economic destiny that distinguished them from the linguistically related southern, yet captive provinces of the Netherlands (principally Flanders and Brabant), which remained under the control of the Spanish occupation forces. The new capital of the Dutch colonial empire in the Indies was appropriately named 'Batavia', to symbolically mark the administrative seat of their expanding manifest destiny in Asia." Iblardi (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

_____

Sources
De Vos 1995 = George A. de Vos, "Ethnic pluralism: conflict and accommodation. The role of ethnicity in social history", in: L. Romanucci-Ross and G. De Vos (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accommodation, 3rd ed., 15-47
Feenstra 2007 = Hidde Feenstra, Spinnen in het web: Groningse regenten in relatie tot het omringende platteland tijdens de Republiek
Feenstra 2008 = Hidde Feenstra, "Historische ontwikkelingen in het Nedersaksische taalgebied ", in H. Bloemhoff, J. van der Kooi, H. Niebaum, S. Reker (eds.), Handboek Nedersaksische taal- en letterkunde, 1-22
Frijhoff & Spies 2004 = Willem Frijhoff and Marijke Spies, Dutch Culture in a European Perspective: 1650, hard-won unity
Goosens 2001 = Aline Goosens, "Wars of religion: The examples of France, Spain and the Low Countries in the sixteenth century", in A.V. Hartmann and B. Heuser (eds.), War， Peace and World Orders in European History, 160-173
Kooij 1987 = Pim Kooij, Groningen, 1870-1914: sociale verandering en economische ontwikkeling in een regionaal centrum
Margry & Roodenburg 2007 = Peter Jan Margry and Herman Roodenburg, "A history of Dutch ethnology in 10 1/2 pages", in Margry & Roodenburg (eds.), Reframing Dutch culture: between otherness and authenticity, 261-272
WPGN 1977 = Winkler Prins Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 1
North/South dichotomy

According to historians, did the Netherlands and Flanders ever form a single cultural unit, and if so, when?

  • Source: Ottenheym 2005 challenges a widespread view that an essential difference between northern and southern architecture came into existence after 1579. Quoting from the abstract: "For a long time after the political separation, i.e. at least during the first decades of the 17th century, both still shared the same cultural identity, which also reflected itself in the field of architecture." Instead, the architecture is said to exhibit "analogous tendencies". Iblardi (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source Wilson 1970 criticizes Geyl's "river line" theory, according to which the outcome of the Revolt was determined by the great rivers forming an insuperable strategic barrier, without dismissing topographically oriented explanations per se. Israel 1995 (not linked to text) agrees with Geyl that there was neither a specifical north Netherlands identity nor a southern Netherlands awareness before 1572, but notes that diverging political, economic and geographic factors were already present before that date. However, "it is true that in religion, ideas, art, and to a large extent [...] also in language and literature, they formed, before the Revolt, one single culture". Yet "By introducing a Calvinist Reformation in the north whilst, in the south, the Catholic Counter-Reformation triumphed, the Revolt severed what had been one culture and replaced it with two warring, antagonistic cultures" (p. vi).
  • That conclusion is in accordance with the view expressed by Beheydt 2002 (p. 38: "Het katholieke Zuiden staat onder invloed van de Contrareformatie [...] terwijl het Noorden ook in zijn civic religion nog steeds door en door calvinistisch is") and Vos 1993 ("The identity of the Southern Netherlands was strongly influenced by its Catholic Counter-Reformation"). Iblardi (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • More on Geyl: according to Duke 2009, p. 13-14, Geyl's concept of the 'Greater Netherlands' was at first received favourably, as it moved historiography away from the then-common national perspective, but that it came under mounting criticism after the Second World War, as "there seemed to be no clear reason why language should be regarded as more important than, say, dynastic loyalty in explaining the growth of national sentiment. Moreover, by deliberately marginalising the Walloon provinces, Geyl made it harder to make sense of the history of the Spanish Netherlands." The general history of the Low Countries conceived after WWII, then, took the entire Benelux as its point of departure. Concerning the period after the Revolt, "[Geyl's] endeavours of treating the Dutch-speaking community as possessing any sort of entity seemed less plausible." The source notes that while contemporary scholars "have generally accepted that there is no point in projecting later linguistic and divisions back to the sixteenth-century Low Countries", they are trying to establish to what extent a joint identity may have existed. Iblardi (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Concerning unity of culture, E.H. Kossmann writes: "It is clearly impossible to give a convincing answer to the question whether, in politically more propitious circumstances, the Northern and Southern Netherlands might have grown into a single nation state with one common culture." [If we define the northern culture, i.e. Dutch culture, as regional rather than national, then] "we must conclude that the national culture uniting the Southern and the Northern Netherlands, and somehow enclosing the regional cultures of Flanders and Brabant, of Holland and Zeeland, never came into existence." (Kossmann 1987a, p. 198) Elsewhere he writes that both Pirenne and Geyl took their inspiration from nationalism, albeit each in a different form. Of course, Geyl's model is in many ways the opposite of that of Pirenne. "Door onze patronen aan het verleden op te leggen, scheppen wij namelijk soms zelf de objecten die wij beweren te beschrijven. Wanneer Pirenne een Histoire de Belgique schrijft, dan schrijft hij over iets dat in het grootste deel van het door hem bestudeerde verleden zelf niet tastbaar aanwezig is. Geen mens heeft in de middeleeuwen of in de zeventiende eeuw in zijn werkelijkheid iets waargenomen wat overeenkomt met ons begrip België. Wanneer Geyl een Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Stam schrijft, dan schrijft hij niet over iets dat concreet in het verleden aanwezig is; nergens vinden wij een Nederlandse Stam als waarneembaar object. (...) Zo is het begrip Nederlandse Stam een hypothese waarmee Geyl op zijn beurt en zijn manier het materiaal dat ook Pirenne gebruikte, kon schikken, ordenen, begrijpelijk maken. (...) Uit de chaos van het verleden (...) kneedden zij hun schone beelden, hun België, hun Nederlandse Stam; wanneer deze beelden leven schijnen te bezitten dan is het omdat de beeldhouwers zulke voortreffelijke artiesten waren dat zij hun leven schenken konden." (Kossmann 1987b, p. 373-374) Iblardi (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

_____

Sources
Beheydt 2002 = Ludo Beheydt, "Delen Vlaanderen en Nederland een culturele identiteit?", in P. Gillaerts, Hilde van Belle, Luc Ravier (eds.), Vlaamse identiteit: mythe én werkelijkheid, 22-42
Duke 2009 : Alastair Duke, Dissident identities in the early modern Low Countries, edited by Judith Pollmann, Andrew Spicer
Israel 1995 = Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic. Its rise, greatness, and fall 1477-1806
Kossmann 1987a = E.H. Kossmann, "The Dutch case: a national or a regional culture?" in Politieke theorie en geschiedenis. Verspreide opstellen en voordrachten, 198-210
Kossmann 1987b = E.H. Kossmann, "Eender en anders. De evenwijdigheid van de Belgische en Nederlandse geschiedenis na 1830", in Politieke theorie en geschiedenis. Verspreide opstellen en voordrachten, 373-387
Ottenheym 2005 = Konrad A. Ottenheym, "Unity and discontinuity in the architecture of the Low Countries, 1530-1700", in Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Elizabeth Pilliod (eds.), Time and place: the geohistory of art, 59-86
Vos 1993 = Louis Vos, "Shifting nationalism: Belgians, Flemings and Walloons", in Mikuláš Teich, Roy Porter (eds.), The National question in Europe in historical context, 128-147
Wilson 1970 = Charles Wilson, Queen Elizabeth and the revolt of the Netherlands


Inclusion

Which groups of people are included in the Dutch ethnic group, and are they always, usually, sometimes, or rarely included in it? The article should try to reflect these nuances and digest a consensus from the available sources, with if needed attention for historical shifts (a group may be considered Dutch now, but not Dutch in the 18th century or so, and vice versa). Fram (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a preliminary remark. Most (maybe all) instances that I have encountered so far of explicit use of the term "ethnicity" in connection with the Dutch have been restricted to texts dealing with contemporary (multi-ethnic) Dutch society or with overseas migrant communities, i.e. to modern age situations where there are contacts between minority and majority groups within a given state or society. Yet when dealing with European history, sources generally rather speak of "people(s)" and "national culture(s)". This is not surprising, given the fact that historiography and anthropology are two different fields of study with different interests and different traditional vocabularies. But I think that a certain amount of original research will be needed to explore if there is any common ground between those two if this article is to contain a historical section at all. Iblardi (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: "Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook" by David Levinson includes the Dutch speaking inhabitants from the Netherlands, from Dutch descent, as ethnically Dutch. The Frisians are included as "culturally related" and the Caravan Dwellers are described as ethnically Dutch. The Dutch speaking inhabitants of Belgium are not included in the chapter on the Netherlands, and are described in the chapter on Belgium as a separate ethnic group.
  • Source: World and Its Peoples states that there are some 14.3 million ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands, and treats the Frisians and the (Belgian) Flemish as separate groups. "Germanic peoples of similar origin, the Flemish and the Dutch are different peoples due to their history rather than any linguistic difference."
  • Edit: As to the non-historical part, to be fair, it is perhaps better to say that the source is oversimplifying rather than misrepresenting. Iblardi (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I am much more cautious on this matter. Now it's some incorect historical generalizations that supposedly disqualify a source; next time it's a typo. A very slippery slope. HP1740-B (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think I ever came close to this line of reasoning. It's more like "when discussing a certain problem, the author shows a conspicuous lack of knowledge regarding the uncontroversial, verifiable part (What are the backgrounds to the current situation?), so it may be wise not to blindly trust the author's judgment with respect to the controversial part (The people of Flanders are Dutch)". I did not say that it is impossible for this source to have got this particular point right. There's no way of telling. Iblardi (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: The Dutch Revolt through Spanish eyes explains that as the Dutch revolt began the Dutch were universally known (in French, German and Spanish) as Flemings. The Low Countries as a whole were called Flanders as well, at least in Spanish. As the war progresses and protestants are more and more beginning to be confined to the North; Spanish sources begin to designate the "Protestants Flemings as "Hollanders" while 'retaining' the original "Flemings" for the Catholics in the area they controlled.HP1740-B (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Nederlandse en Vlaamse identiteit, Civis Mundi 2006 by S.W Couwenberg. IBSN 90 5573 688 0. Page 62. states clearly that the Dutch and Flemings form a single cultural and linguistic group.HP1740-B (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • A known Greater Netherlands proponent publishes a book at his own publisher. This is not an independent scientific work, but a biased, self-published one. Fram (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Please do not attack an author just because what he researched and wrote about doesn't suit you. The book is not self-published nor the work of a single author. HP1740-B (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I didn't attack an author, I criticized the use of his book here. Couwenberg is the founder of Civis Mundi, and Civis Mundi is the publisher of his book. That's pretty close to the definition of self-published, I would say... Fram (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • He founded its predecessor in 1962. Civis Mundi publishes a whole array of books and studies on sociology and socio-political problems. If it were founded in 2005 and if this was its only publication, you might have had a point. In reality however you don't. So stop trying to spam this talk page with your attempts at character assasination.HP1740-B (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Spamming? Character assassination? Slightly over the top... Anyway, he is still one of the seven redactors of Civis Mundi[2], so it's not a thing of the past. Fram (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
              • You attacked an author based on your own accusations and assumptions; not on what he wrote. None of your above comments are about the text. They are only attemps to discredit an author. Stop it. HP1740-B (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
                • But the intention of this RfC is to find reliable, independent, neutral sources which have information on the Dutch ethnic group, so discussing whether a source is reliable and/or independent and/or neutral is perfectly normal here. I am not removing this source (contrary to what you did with one source I added), I am voicing my reservations with it, and my reasons for doing so. If I see other sources where I think their reliability, independence, neutrality, or applicability may be a problem, I will again "attack them based on my own accusations", as you so nicely put it: I will provide the reasons why I regard a source as more or less authoritative. You have every right to disagree with my judgment, but you don't have the right to try to silence me over it. Fram (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Oorlog voor onze gedachten, by I. Tames, discusses an interesting theory which combines cultural and linguistic unity opposed by different paths of national development.HP1740-B (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Herschreven historie, by B. H. Slicher van Bath writes: Northern Dutch and Flemings have - among other things, thanks to speaking the same language - a common culture. They form, together, one people: the Dutch people. Unity, followed immediately by differentiation. As culture spreads from a number of cultural centers, to whom the neigboring region is subjected. Dutch culture did not crystallize in one specific area; two different areas can clearly be distinguised: one below, and one above the Great Rivers.HP1740-B (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • A 1949 source, may be interesting for the historical part. Anyway, I don't think translating "een gelijkgeaarde cultuur" with "a common culture" is correct. "Gelijkgeaard" is "Likeminded", or "similar". "Common" is something different. Fram (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Flemish influence in Britain, by John Arnold Fleming this, 1930s source, seems to use "Flemish" in a geographical sense while using Dutch and Walloon in an ethnic sense; seeing as it distinguishes between "Dutch Flemings" and "Walloon Flemings". HP1740-B (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "Walloon Flemings" doesn't appear in this book, so I don't think you have a point. Anyway, largely outdated. Fram (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Please read more carefully. The distinction is there.HP1740-B (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Which page? Fram (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • The page it links to of course. Dutch Flemings and Walloons in Flanders ... HP1740-B (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
            • The only time it mentions Walloons is in "Flanders is composed of two people, the Walloons and the Flemings, as Britain is made up of English and Scots". It seems obvious to me that "Flanders" here is a mistake, and it should be Belgium instead. Anyway, it mentions "Walloons" once, on page 21, and "Dutch Flemings" once, on page 212, so I still don't see where your criticism comes from. Not worth spending more time on anyway, a 1930 source which isn't directly very appropriate for our research is perhaps not the best to base our current article on anyway. Fram (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: 1585: de val van Antwerpen en de uittocht van Vlamingen en Brabanders (2004) by Gustaaf Asaert: writes: Through integration and later assimilation Southern Dutch culture in general became a part of the Dutch people, in that one culture between Dunkirk and Emden. Only a few of our northern brothers and sisters know of their southern roots. Often they'll visit archives in Flanders searching through official documents; hoping to find traces of their ancestors, who once lived in our common fatherland.HP1740-B (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: The Rotarian, the magazine of Rotary International, march 1990 writes, as it analyzed the Flemish-Walloon-conflict that Belgium consists of two ethnic groups: the Dutch Flemings, and the French Walloons.HP1740-B (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think this can be considered a reliable source for the study of ethnicity. Fram (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Please clarify your opinion with arguments.HP1740-B (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I thought that that was pretty obvious in this case. What makes either the Rotary Magazine or writer Jacqueline Sletto an authority on ethnics? It is not a publication or a publisher with a reputation for being scientific, unlike e.g. Harvard or many of the other sources given here. Fram (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • If so many of the other references here were from Harvard; you wouldn't bother adding personal homepages. The article is a in-depth analysis. The author has researched the subject, that is to be assumed. It is a valid source.HP1740-B (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
            • HP-1740B, you are slowly but steadily moving away from a neutral discussion of the sources and start again adding your personal opinion and unfounded allegations. You have claimed before that I have added a personal homepage (not personal homepages plural), and I have clearly demonstrated that that was incorrect, and that it was actually thewebsite of a scientific magazine (contrary to the Rotary magazine). The value of a source can and should be weighed by the scientific reputation of the publisher, the background of the author, and the independence between the author (and the publication) and the subject. Assuming that the author has done her research isn't enough. Fram (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
              • The ' disputed source' is from a respectable publisher, written by a respectable author/professor, with abundant inline citation of other works. It is perfectly reliable. It is you who has, in the past few days, started to express your personal ("I don't think that ...") below source material; not surprisingly to material which seems to conflict with your POV. I will not validate your posts on this matter any longer by replieing. This source is reliable, even if it disagrees with your personal view.HP1740-B (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Number 3 edition of the (2005) magazine "Neerlandia" by the ANV comments on a "lead culture" stalemate; in which Flanders and the Netherlands are of such relative equal size and worth that neither can convincingly claim to be the "cultural vanguard" of the Dutch community which can lead to feelings of superiority on both sides; the article notes this as being the exact opposite of the situation between France and Wallonia.HP1740-B (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Onder ons: tijdschrift voor Katholieke Nederlanders en Vlamingen in Canada; "Among us; magazine for Dutch Catholics and Flemings" -- Not an inclusionistic source per se; but it does make a beautifull primary source for that well-known religious-cultural divide between the Northern Dutch and the Flemish with the Southern Dutch being caught (and often forgotten) in between.HP1740-B (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, not an inclusionist source, on the contrary... But not a good source to reflect the scientific debate. We should avoid all primary sources here, and stick to what others have reported. Fram (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: The ethnic food lover's companion (2001) speaks of Belgium as inhabited by "ethnic Dutch, who speak Flemish, and Walloons, who speak French". Iblardi (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Culture, institutions, and economic development: a study of eight European regions (2003) by Michael Keating, John Loughlin, Kris Deschouwer, when speaking of the question of Flemish identity, mentions Flemish Dutch as an ethnic marker to differentiate the Flemish from their Francophone and Dutch neighbours. Iblardi (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Split screen: Belgian cinema and cultural identity by Philip Mosley (2001) speaks of a perceived ethnic contuinity in Flanders from the 1960s onward which "did not extend to their Dutch neighbors". Dutch identity is said to be "very different in religion and culture". Reference is made to work by Kas Deprez. Iblardi (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Another source which seems to base itself on false the black and white notion of "calvinism vs. catholicism".HP1740-B (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • If the sources consider this a true notion, then it is not up to us to dismiss them because of this. Your personal opinion of what is the truth shouldn't be mixed with whether a source is acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It is not my personal opinion, it is a fact that the south of the Netherlands is Catholic. It is a fact that the majority of the Dutch is (traditionally) Catholic. That doesn't mean the source can be dismissed, something I never said or claimed, but it does mean the source should be treated with care.HP1740-B (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Note that the subject of the sentence is "Dutch identity", not "the Netherlands". A national identity can be based on the cultural traits of a minority. Iblardi (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion

Are there any sources to be found which explicitly say that the Flemings do not form a part of the Dutch ethnic group with further (detailed) argumentation?HP1740-B (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovely, how you are still trying to revert the burden of proof, and are making much more strict requirements here than are made in the above (inclusion) section. According to WP:BURDEN, you have to give the sources which "which explicitly say that the Flemings do form a part of the Dutch ethnic group with further (detailed) argumentation". I am not asking for sources "which explicitly say that the Danish do not form a part of the Dutch ethnic group with further (detailed) argumentation" either, for (a not extremely farfetched) example. Fram (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith here. I think it would be worthwhile if sources that explicitly exclude the Flemish from the Dutch were given. The more so, if that might show that sources that want to include them may not be un-opposed. Of course evidence is needed for inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A number of sources that explicitly exclude the Flemish are given above already (all those that separate counts for ethnic Dutch from ethnic Flemish, e.g. all sources relating to ethnic groups in Canada or the US). The request for further detailed argumentation though goes clearly beyond what was asked for (or given with) those sources including the Flemish. Fram (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep this very clear; none of the above sources (though there's one, that might qualify) explicitly say the Flemish are a separate ethnic group from the Dutch and then explain why. None of them do that. There are sources which give the Flemish as an ethnic group and there are sources which claim, explicitly, that they are a part of the Dutch; with a lot of the latter explaining why. Those aren't 'equal' sources. Stating and stating why are not the same. You should know that.
Furthermore, as it could, very easily, be reasoned and perhaps intented that the Flemish only form an ethnic group when the scope is Belgium but not when the scope is the entire Low Countries, or Europe, it is of vital importance to get sources which irrevocably state that the Dutch and Flemish are separate and explain why.HP1740-B (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't care why sources state whatever they do, unless they seem to be non neutral and partisan. Many of the above sources explicitly treat the Flemish and the Dutch as two separate ethnic groups. Perhaps they only do so because of a different country of origin, perhaps because they believe that the Flemings and the Dutch in general consider themselves to be two ethnic groups, perhaps because they are in error. We don't know, and I don't care, just like I don't care why some sources may consider Duct hand Flemish as one ethnic group. I don't get though where you get that "a lot of the latter" explain why: you don't start with a lot stating that Dutch and Flemish are one ethnic group, so a subgroup of those can never be "a lot". Your second paragraph is pure original research and of no interest to me, apart from the fact that it again tries to shift WP:BURDEN away from you. Perhaps you could just list (or identify) those sources from those given above that you consider to be good sources claiming that the Flemish as an ehnic group are part of the Dutch ethnic group, and which subgroup of those explains why. Fram (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly: "perhaps", "perhaps", "perhaps". That's speculation; I want real sources with clear statements.HP1740-B (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
... but you don't find any? Perhaps you haven't noticed the final "perhaps" in my post above... Fram (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I found a number of them. You're trying to discredit one by attacking the author as we speak.HP1740-B (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Couwenberg? Or the Rotary one? Couwenberg states that "Die verschillen zijn er onmiskenbaar: in taal, klank, kleur, stijl, gedrag, in politiek, maatschappelijke organisatie, maar het zijn stuk voor stuk varianten binnen één taal-en cultuurgemeenschap." Elsewhere, in a condensed version of his book[3], he also states that "Behalve door vooroordelen over en weer wordt de Nederlands-Vlaamse samenwerking ook belemmerd door een gebrek aan wederzijdse belangstelling. Dat blijkt b.v. uit het beperkte culturele grensverkeer via kranten, tijdschriften, radio en tv. Dat is namelijk veel beperkter dan men zou verwachten op grond van het taalgebied dat we met elkaar delen.": "Apart from prejudices back and forth, the Dutch-Flemish cooperation is also hampered by a lack of mutual interest. This is evidenced by e.g. the limited cultural border traffic through newspapers, magazines, radio and tv. This is a lot more restricted than one would expect based on the shared language territory." The same article also acknowledges that "Wel betogen Vlaamse taalkundigen dat het Nederlands voor de gemiddelde Vlaming eigenlijk een vreemde taal is, bovendien onderwezen door taalleraren die dat Nederlands zelf niet eens beheersen.", i.e. "But Flemish linguists argue that the Dutch language is actually a foreign language for the average Fleming, teached by language teachers who don't master the language themselves." (I have argued above that Couwenberg is biased, not that he is dishonest: he presents the arguments of all sides, but his conclusions are more what he would like to happen and to be, not what is). Fram (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Vlaamse identiteit: mythe én werkelijkheid door P. Gillaerts,Hilde van Belle,Luc Ravier, published by Acco in 2002, discusses at length the differences between Flanders and the Netherlands: "The recognition that Flanders and the Netherlands are two recognisable culturs with a separate cultural identity doesn't have to mean that Flanders and the Netherlands can't have common politics for language and culture." The whole chapter "Delen Vlaanderen en Nederland een culturele identiteit" ("Do Flanders and the Netherlands share a cultural identity?") discusses this. Fram (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Dubious argument, as it gives the religious differences as the main reason for a supposed cultural boundardy. Interesting material on media and politics though. HP1740-B (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. It gives organisation of the society, differences in language, mentality, education, and adds that religion is also a factor, both now and as a cause for the Fall of Antwerp in 1585, which was a major influence in the separation of the two cultures. And again, it isn't our job to discuss whether an argument is dubious or not, as that again leads us to original research and endless debates of I believe X vs. you believe Y. Fram (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It is a source which can easily be countered by other source material. I only gave an example for its main argument which was religion.HP1740-B (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • What the source appears to say is that different value systems were transmitted and reinforced through education and through the media, and that the civic religion from which these values supposedly derive is different for North and South; the mentality of the Netherlands was heavily influenced by Calvinism, even though it counted large numbers of Catholics within its borders; that of Flanders by post-Counter-Reformation Catholicism. (Consequently, according to this argument, the existing cultural differences can at least in part be traced back to the establishment of political boundaries - without the Revolt there would have been no different civic religion in the North.) Iblardi (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: "Multilingualism in Brussels", by M. Verlot and K. Delrue (in Urban multilingualism in Europe: immigrant minority languages at home and school, 2004). The emphasis on "Flemish" vs. "Dutch" as a marker of cultural identity, language and common history, which are key elements in most definitions of ethnicity, seems to imply that the authors consider the Flemish a separate ethnic group, with these arguments. Iblardi (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: "Is Dutch a pluricentric language?" by G. Geerts (in Pluricentric languages: differing norms in different nations, 1992) appears to argue the existence of a Flemish language independent from Dutch. Iblardi (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Shifting nationalism: Belgians, Flemings and Walloons" speaks of the emergence of a 'Belgian' (as opposed to Dutch) ethnic community or ethnie from the 16th to the 18th century, characterized by a collective name, common myth of descent, shared history, distinctive shared culture, association with a specific territory and sense of solidarity. Iblardi (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions RfC

Latest comment: 14 years ago37 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that I have been the only user contributing to this page since 11 May. (The RfC itself has apparently gone unnoticed outside the circle of regular contributors.) I would therefore like to request, that, if anyone has more sources to add and/or critical comments to make, he/she do so soon. Otherwise, I would propose that we draw up some synthesis based on the material provided in the above sections. Iblardi (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC failed to get any attention outside us four. Thanks for all the sources you provided. I hope that we can get an outsider to conclude this RfC, as I fear that no matter who of us closes this RfC, the other side will protest that the closer will have put too much weigth on sources saying X and will have ignored the much better sources saying Y. Fram (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a neutral notification of this RfC on four related wikiprojects (Netherlands, Belgium, Friesland, and Ethnic Groups). Perhaps it will generate some extra input. Fram (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
No input has been forthcoming until now. How much longer should we wait? Iblardi (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Normally, an RfC stays open for some thirty days. I hope that some truly uninvolved people will come along to close it. If needed, I'll drop a note at the admin noticeboard to ask for some uninvolved admin(s) or experienced editors to come along and close it then. If we close it ourselves, it will not have served its purpose of getting out of the small circle of opposing parties here. Fram (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The RfC was closed a few days ago. One positive result of it has been that, unlike before, we finally have a decent array of sources at our disposal. At this stage, however, I am reluctant to unilaterally implement any major changes. So yes, I would appreciate it if you could bring in more editors to solve these issues. Otherwise I fear that the discussion will bleed to death once more, as has so often happened in the past. Iblardi (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No idea how to bring in more editors though, the RfC was posted on all related wikiprojects, to no avail. I'll go over the article and undo the major changes by HP-1740B again, since he has again left the discussions in the middle, making a decent discussion impossible. He basically reverted to his preferred version by continuing until being blocked, while other people stopped before we entered an even larger edit war. But there are still no sources for e.g. calling Bruges "Dutch" in the 14th century, and the Belgium section is filled with "citation needed" sentences. Apart from that, I fear that whichever editors are here will have to reach a conclusion and compromise about the sources and their impact on the article. Waiting for outside input can't go on indefinitely, and we can always take it into account once it arrives. Fram (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the Flemings, much would be gained if the article, rather than choosing one of two radically opposed viewpoints ("the Flemings are unquestionably part of the Dutch ethnic group" vs. "the Flemings are a completely different group with their own language, which is distinct from Dutch"), would try to reflect the fact that the sources are far from unanimous on this issue. I think this has been convincingly shown above (rather than argued by a single editor). In its current form the article exclusively follows the Greater Netherlandish idea proposed by Geyl, with the Flemings being treated as "Southern Dutch". Geyl's idea, however, is one possible point of view among many others (see Kossmann 1987, Duke 2009, Israel 1995, Beheydt 2002). It must be possible to sort this out without losing encyclopedic objectivity by giving undue weight to only one of the listed points of view. Iblardi (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Who claimed "the Flemings are unquestionably part of the Dutch ethnic group"? If this is supposed to refer to me, let it be clear that I state that the Flemish (that is the Dutch-speakers of Belgium) form (together, they are not a 'subsection' or 'part') a single ethno-cultural grouping (which doesn't fit the defintion of an ethnic group perfectly, but much more than it doesn't) based on history,ancestry, language, religion and culture but not political identification on a direct level.HP1740-B (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't see much ground for dispute. Iblardi (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well obviously someone does, because this talk page is full of supposed conflict. For clarity's sake, who disagree's with my above statement?HP1740-B (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I do. The Dutch and the Flemings have a separate history for most of the time (excluding the periods 1420-1580 and 1815-1830 mainly), a partly separate, partly common culture, a partly separate religion (protestantism is a major factor in the Netherlands, and a very minor one in Flanders), and a mainly separate self-identification. As for ancestry, that as well is very unclear, unless you take ancestry broad enough to include many other parts of the (anglo-Germanic) world as well. Fram (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If I were to walk from Roosendaal to Wuustwezel ... where would I pass the line between Flemings and Dutchmen?HP1740-B (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If you were to do the same between Germany and the Netherlands, or Germany and Belgian Limburg, or West-Flanders and France, or French Flanders and the rest of France, or Frisia and the rest of the Netherlands, you wouldn't be able to draw a black-and white line either (although the political boundary is in some respects such a line, of course). That a boundary is a gray zone doesn't mean that the groups on either side are identical, only that they are related and partly overlapping. The many people in border regiuons who have migrated from one to the other make such distinctions less clear as well (just like e.g. the official language boundary between Flemish and Walloons no longer reflects the actual one, with a number of communities which are de facto part of both language groups or have even moved from predominantly Flemish to predominantly Frenchspeaking). So your question is basically a red herring (which of course should appeal to the Dutch :-) ). Fram (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I'm more a fan of mussels with fries than herring. Your argument holds no ground. You try to wave my point away by making supposedly equal analogies. But they're not. When you walk from North Holland to Friesland or from West-Flanders to France, the language changes. When you walk from Gelderland to Germany, the language as well as the religion changes. You're comparing apples and pears here ... or should I say apples and red herrings?HP1740-B (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"When you walk from North Holland to Friesland, the language changes". Right at the province border? Again, where do you pass the line? Similarly, while the official language changes at the border between Limburg and Germany, the actual spoken language (the dialect) doesn't. It's all gradual. And in the end, it is not even important. There is no language border between (most of) Canada and the US either, but they are not one ethnic group. There is no language or religion border between Mexico and Chile, but they are hardly one ethnic group anymore either. Fram (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Friesland and North Holland don't really share a border, but despite being only 20km apart, the language does change. Americans and Canadians aren't ethnic groups ... you ought to know that. If this is going to be the 'level' of discussion, please stop responding. I'm unaware of the ethnic relations between Chile and Mexico (being unaware they even remotely shared a border, while under the impression that in South America the distinction is mainly made between ´native´ and ´colonial´ herritage, rather than language) but I do note that in the U.S for example, both would be ´Latino´.HP1740-B (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Point is, it is impossible for either the Dutch or whatever you personally think constitute Flemings, can form a proper ethnic group alone. This is Europe, and when, groups of people share the same language (down to a dialect level), religion, history, climate, genes even, architecture and cuisine ... then it's a nigh impossible task (yours btw) to prove they are totally distinct. I say, and I feel Iblardi would agree with me given a previous remark by him, the solution lies in simply mentioning where the difference lies (political development - specifically nationalism in 19th and 20th century Belgium) because you can never ever prove what you want it to be ... so badly.HP1740-B (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Your statement "let it be clear that I state that the Flemish (that is the Dutch-speakers of Belgium) form (together, they are not a 'subsection' or 'part') a single ethno-cultural grouping" caused surprise, but I now understand that you meant to say "Flemish and Dutch", not just "Flemish". Iblardi (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why didn' t you see "see much ground for dispute" then?HP1740-B (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted it as a revision of your opinion. Never mind. Iblardi (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, please elaborate.HP1740-B (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Your phrasing was unclear! Don't you see that? Iblardi (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Canadians are not an ethnic group? 10 millions Canadains disagree[4]. This is their self-identification, with more than 5 million giving this as their only ethnic origin, and 4 million combining it with other ones, like Dutch(Netherlands). Asfor Chileand Mexico, I am just applying your rules, your definitions, you questions that somehow have to prove that Flemish and Dutch are one ethnicity. When you apply them to other situations, they somehow become invalid, but it is very unclear to me why that would be...

You still have to prove that they are undeniably one ethnic group. You now claim that the Flemish and Dutch share the same dialect (I thought there were many, some purely in the Netherlands or Belgium, some bordercrossing ones), religion (in part, far from completely, e.g. the extreme minority of Protestantism in Belgium compared to the Netherlands), history (partial only, obviously), genes (there we go again, this has been discussed at length in the past, and not one shred of evidence for these shared genes has been proveded), cuisine (really? That's not the impression of many people in Flanders), ... strong claims without much support, sadly. Anyway, we have listed the available sources extensively, and it is clear that the opinions of the authors are divided, and that many reliable sources disagree with your conclusion that they are the same apart from some political distinction.

Finally, apart from the usual shifting of the burden, you are also making demands for statements no one in this discussion has ever defended. As I have stated throughout this discussion and with my changes on the article, the Flemish and the Dutch are closely related ethnic groups, not "totally distinct". Of course it would be impossible to prove that they are totally distinct, but that is such a blatant straw man argument that I am appalled that you would even attempt to use it after all this time we have spent here already. Stick to what the discussion is actaully about, and drop the useless diversionary tactics please. Fram (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that the argument from language is brought up again, as the same Anthony D. Smith whose book The ethnic origins of nation is used as an authority for the "ethnic category"-"ethnic community" model in the article actually treats the Flemish as a separate ethnic group, saying: "Cultural uniqueness is also important for ethnicity. The ethnie in question should appear to be ... incommensurable, either by having a language which is unrelated to other languages, or a religious community entirely to itself, or because among a host of ethnic cultures it stands out by virtue of a cultural characteristic of its own, such as colour or institutions, or because the combination of otherwise cross-cultural traits is unique. The first case is represented by the Basques ... and the last case by the Bangladeshi, .... or the Flemish who share their Catholic religion with the Walloons but their language with their Dutch neighbours to the north." (Smith 1987, p. 27-28, my italics) On the relative importance of language as an ethnic marker, he notes: "...language, long held to be the main, if not the sole, differentiating mark of ethnicity, is often irrelevant or divisive for the sense of ethnic community. The difference in speech between the Gaelic-speaking Highlands and the Lallans-speaking Lowlands did not impair the sense of Scottish identity, and English-speaking Welsh in South Wales may feel just as ethnically Welsh as their Welsh-speaking compatriots in northern Wales." (p. 27, also cited further below), and: "In fact, the further east one travels, the more religion predominates over language in defining the sense of shared ethnicity, whatever Western-educated scholars may deem to be an 'objective' criterion." (p. 232, note 22) In other words, Smith completely disagrees with you, HP1740-B. Iblardi (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
@Fram. Protestantism is, and always has been, a minority in the Netherlands. A very vocal, and at times even dominant minority, but a minority nonetheless. A minority, mostly coming from Flanders. The Beeldenstorm didn' t start in the Netherlands, but in French Flanders. On language, don' t people from Wuustwezel and Roosendaal speak the same dialect? Pretty simple I think. On Cuisine, cuisine isn' t what you eat at a restaurant. It's what you eat the rest of the week. Frieten, Stoofvlees, Stamppot, anyone? The truth is, you know nothing about the Netherlands, its people or anything about it. Your arguments, every single one of them, are based on a (false) national stereotype. It is very, very sad indeed, that you continually try to pose yourself as someone using sourced material. Drop the act.HP1740-B (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what your historical perspective on Protestantism adds, I am describing the current sitution, where Protestantism is an important factor in the Netherlands, and qiuantité negligeable in Belgium. As for what I know or don't know about the Netherlands, please keep your opinions on that to yourself, just I like won't comment on what you know or con't know about the Netherlands or Belgium. It is not helping the discussion one bit. Please discuss things in a reasonable manner. Fram (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you don't. Please explain though, how Protestantism is an important factor in the Netherlands in the year of our lord 2010?HP1740-B (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
See Beheydt 2002 (p. 38: "Het katholieke Zuiden staat onder invloed van de Contrareformatie [...] terwijl het Noorden ook in zijn civic religion nog steeds door en door calvinistisch is") and Vos 1993 ("The identity of the Southern Netherlands was strongly influenced by its Catholic Counter-Reformation"). Iblardi (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
And see also "De erfenis van 1830" van Rietbergen en Verschaffel, 2006: Page 202: "Het liefst hanteert men in Nederland de overkoepelende aanduiding 'calvinisme' die elke gedachte aan ook maar de geringste verwantschap met het hyperkatholieke zuiden meteen uitsluit". The book indicates that while the current "calvinist" values of the Netherlands are imported from Flanders (which subsequently abandoned them), neither region wants to acknowledge these shared aspects. Which of course fits nicely with the central theme of ethnicity, i.e. "An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed." All efforts we make to emphasize or ignore the common aspects are in the end meaningless: what counts is whether the Flemish and the Dutch usually identify themselves as part of the same ethnic group, and secondary whether reliable independent sources identify them as such. Whether we believe that they have a common history or not, a common culture or not, a common social stratification or not, ... is utterly irrelevant. The only thing important is to provde good sources indicating if and when the Flemish and / or the Dutch were part of a "Dutch ethnic group". For the situation before 1400 - 1450, it seems to me that the sources overwhelmingly point to the absence of such a common ethnicity. From the Burgundian unification on, the sources are more divided, with the strongest arguments for a single ethnicity probably for the 16th century, and a renewed division (in the minde of the people and of the authors describing this) afer 1585 and until now. Fram (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again pointing to that little slab of land, roughly 1/3 of the total landmass and populace, between the rhine and the Belgian border. I kknow you, Fram, love to ignore it, but it's there and not going away.HP1740-B (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to the authors of the sources, not to me. I stated that protestantism was still an important factor, which you denied: then both Iblardi and I provided sources as evidence that yes, protestantism is still an important factor in the Netherlands. You can make this discussion as personal as you like, while at the same time again ignoring the fact that your unsupported claim has been refuted by reliable sources, but it fast gets old how you try to suggest that I somehow claimed that there are no catholics in the Netherlands or that Catholicism is not important in the Netherlands (and if you wanted to suggest soemthing else, then please state it outright) and want me to defend a position I have never taken or defended. The only claim I made was that Protestantism is an important factor in the Netherlans nowadays, while it isn't in Belgium or Flanders. I am not ignoring anything. Fram (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for adaptations

Following up on my earlier remark, I have drafted the below paragraph for incorporation into the article. Please feel free to comment.

The exact delimitation of the Dutch in ethnic terms has varied with time and from author to author. In historiography, the fact that the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands did not yet form a cultural and linguistic unity seems hardly contested; especially the incorporation of the north-eastern parts of the present-day Netherlands (the "Saxon" provinces) into the current political and linguistic framework took several hundreds of years, and for a long time these regions showed greater cultural and linguistic affinity with the German lands than with western provinces like Holland or Brabant (Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953], 173, 175; WPGN 1 1977, 241; Kooij 1987, 4; Feenstra 2007, 160; Feenstra 2008, 160). In terms of self-affiliation of its inhabitants, the late Medieval Netherlands provide a very varied image, in which the emphasis lay primarily on a person's local or regional background (Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953], 175; Blockmans 2006, 83).
Both the historical and current status of Dutch-speaking Belgium are surrounded by some controversy. Flemings and Dutch are generally considered to be at least two closely related cultural groups; yet scholars have also pointed out the diverging traditions that have given the northern and southern Netherlands their distinct present-day outlook and that ultimately go back to the political split which came about during the Eighty Years' War. The contrasting "Greater Netherlandic" vision, which came to prominence in the interwar period and which attributed special meaning to the shared language as a defining marker of the Dutch and the Flemings as a single cultural group, has receded to the background after the Second World War (Kossmann 1987b, 373-374; Duke 2009, 13-14), although it still has adherents outside academic circles. In literature on ethnicity, the Flemish are often, but not always, considered a separate ethnic group (*** insert a selection of sources listed under "Inclusion" ***).

Iblardi (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but ...
  1. The "Greater Netherlandic vision" is not of the interwar period. The 'Orangists' among the Dutch-speakers of newly created Belgium (1839) had largely similarly ideas. It could be argued that the interwar period (with Geyl especially) brings the idea into the mainstream though of the Netherlands, but the idea itself is older and fits the period of romantic nationalism (Frankfurt assemblee, etc.) perfectly.
  2. I dislike the "[The Netherlands] did not yet form a cultural and linguistic unity"-bit. Not because I don't agree, because I do agree, but because it is ambigious in its scope. "Not a unity" seems too strong considering that many charactaristics were shared, and their 'value' only depends on how an author sees them. (For example; what is considered to be 'unity'; speaking related dialects or a single standard language?)
  3. The idea that Flemings/Dutch-thing has supporters only outside the academic circle is, incorrect. There were plenty of references brought to this page that disagree.
  4. No attention is given to the intermediary position of the southern Dutch provinces.~
  5. On what basis does literature consider the Flemish a separate ethnic group?
  6. What warrents the use of often?
HP1740-B (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
1. That is why it says "came into prominence" rather than "came into being". As a historic and historiographical model (rather than a cultural or political movement) it was a reaction to Pirenne. Cf. "N.C.F. van Sas, "Grote Verhalen en kleine lettertjes. 1830 in de Nederlandse geschiedschrijving", in: P. J. A. N. Rietbergen, Tom Verschaffel (eds.), De erfenis van 1830, 53-74, esp. 60: "Piet Blaas heeft ... benadrukt dat Groot-Nederlandse geschiedschrijving toch vooral een Noord-Nederlands fenomeen is geweest, voortgekomen uit het exuberante nationalisme ... van het fin-de-siècle." According to Lode Wils (Vlaanderen, België, Groot-Nederland. Mythe en geschiedenis (1994)), the Greater Netherlands Movement was fostered by the German occupier in WWI, flourished shortly under Gerretson and Geyl in the Netherlands, and faded after WWII ("Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog, dus na het einde van de Grootnederlandse Beweging en ten tijde van de Benelux, is men van Noordnederlandse zijde het probleem gaan 'oplossen' door Beneluxgeschiedenissen te schrijven.") (p. 427)).
2.
a. "not a unity" is safer than its opposite, "a unity", because the burden of proof rests with the latter description.
b. If unity is to be found in "many shared characteristics", you should describe those characteristics, because they are not mentioned in these sources. Moreover, it should be made plausible that the characteristics shared with other groups in the LC are somehow more crucial and 'defining' than those shared with non-LC groups.
c. If speaking related dialects is considered a unity, the 16th- and perhaps 17th-century eastern provinces, according to the sources, have a better claim to unity with the nearby German regions than with the western part of the Low Countries, except on a political level.
3. Could you give an example of a contemporary academic source that supports the "Greater Netherlandic" vision?
4. How would you propose to describe these in an encyclopedic way, with the use of sources?
5. A couple of sources listed above give arguments (construction of identity, different civic religion etc.). In the end the question should not be relevant; it should suffice that they do so.
6. The frequent occurrence of such sources in the above discussions (Levinson, Petersen, World and its peoples, Smith, Strikwerda, Keating, Loughlin & Deschouwer) seems to warrant it; however, I do see that this is somewhat interpretative, and I would agree to change "considered" to a more factual "described as".

Iblardi (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1: I think its better to describe the situation than to go with either 'extreme'.
2a:Exactly.
2b/c:Then that should be mentioned. I have no objection of 'incorporating' those regions at a later time. But I do object to calling the neighbouring region "German" ... seems that if we're having such a hard time defining what was 'Dutch' ... defining what was 'German' at the time is even more complicated.
3:The Civis Mundi source come to mind directly.
4:Well the "Greater Netherlands"-idea is a political ideology; I have little interest in it as such. I'm much more interested in making clear the similarities and differences within the Dutch ethno-cultural group. So I don't really care if it makes the article beyond mentioning when it was politically most prominent.
5:Again, how do you plan to combine that information with regionalism within Flanders and the Netherlands?
6:Agreed.

HP1740-B (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Then you agree with the proposed description?
2.
a. OK, then I see no dispute.
b-c. This is already the case. It is mentioned expliticly in the sources listed in Talk:Dutch_people#Habsburg_Netherlands_and_Dutch_Revolt, to which the text refers. I have no problem calling the "German lands" something else if it does not conflict with those sources. Possible alternatives: "German Low Saxon regions", "Münster", "territories/dialects now considered German" etc.
3. I do not have access to that source. Can it be called academic, i.e. is it annotated, does it contain a bibliography, is the magazine (Civis Mundi) peer reviewed? And, of course, does it indeed support the Greater Netherlandic idea? If so, we can incorporate this into the current draft.
4. OK, no changes then.
5. I see no conflict. Identities can be multiple and are subject to change.
6. OK.

Iblardi (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_people/Archive_10&oldid=1144845905"