Talk:Dutch Americans

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Question

Nice article, but what do you mean exactly with

In the 1840s, the Dutch farmer immigrants were accompanied by Reformed Christian immigrants fleeing religious persecution

The Netherlands are not known for religious intolerance. Often emigrants do not find the place they leave behind not to their religious taste but these people can also be labeled as religious fundamentalists. V8rik 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(While I agree in general, Catholics have been regarded as second rate citizens for centuries after the independance, and in some times (1600s) even persecuted, this was one of the factors why Belgium separated)

To my knowledge while New York was seized during Anglo-Dutch wars several time, the definite change of hands was after the 2nd war, and a trade against Suriname. At the time it was considered a good deal for the Dutch. History might have proven them wrong :_)

there was some repression; in 1842 the Dutch 'gereformeerde' protestant church broke away from the older hervomde 'protestant' church. The Dutch government tried to stop this new church by incarcerating some of its members and giving them fines. I agree, it wasn't the Spanish inquisition, but it did lead to it that many (among which were some distant relatives of mine) went to Michigan.

Article | rewrite

The sheer number of sources is (beyond) impressive but the article could be better, I'll try to improve it a bit. Rex 16:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Rex 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping all the references to "Catholics" and "Protestants" from an article about Dutch Americans is akin to removing the words "North" and "South" from an article on the American Civil War. The two groups had distinctly reasons for emigration, different cultures and different attitudes about life. Holland, Michigan is no Little Chute, Wisconsin, and visa versa. While the article needed a re-write, the current version it lost some soul. Jhuiting 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the article as it was, all the remarks on religious figures were unnecesary details and made the artcle somewhat incomprehensible.Rex 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“…religious figures were unnecesary(sic) details…” Either you’re trying to yank my chain or you’re an anti-religious zealot. Or both. In any case, I’m not rising to the bait. I am not a religious person. I am, however, quite aware of the role of Catholicism and Calvinism in the lives of the Dutch, before and after they immigrated. This is substantiated in all literature.

I'm not interested in an editing war. You’ve edited a lot of these articles; what are the procedures for consensus? Jhuiting 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not against adding the relegious information, but it has to be evened out by other data. Before the rewrite this article was like 80% religious information - 20@ other. Rex 15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have some common ground. I agree the original article was too religious. The Dutch Americans described in that article were not the Dutch Americans I grew up in in NE Wisconsin. Why the difference: they were Calvinist (Dutch Reform) and my people were Catholics. The differences are huge.

First, Catholics generally emigrated in groups – whole neighborhoods – usually led by a priest. The Dutch government was glad to get rid of them and they, second-class citizens for decades until the early 1800s, were glad to go. The Dutch Reformists, on the other hand, left on a more individual basis, and in line with their Calvinist beliefs, were going to prove themselves in America.

Predictably, the Dutch American towns, Catholic and Calvinist, were different. The Catholic drank, danced, played cards, focused on farming, listened to the priest. Relative to the Calvinists, they were probably not as financially set. And didn’t strive to be. The result: St Norbert College (liberal liberal arts), Kermis (with beer and dancing), and a live and let live attitude. Little Chute, the epicenter, can't quite get the Dutch tourism thing going. But it probably has a dozen bars and is a fun place to go.

The Calvinist were just the opposite. Hard working and striving for success, they tended to do better, focus on advancement and education and advancing the Church. No drinking, cards or dancing. The result is many more colleges (Calvin College for example), better run towns with active tourism, no bars, tulip festivals… Plus a couple of Dutch Presidents.

The Dutch American communities, both Catholic and Calvinist, had/have many similar qualities: single nationality dominating the town, thrifty (more honestly cheap as hell – I know being one), focus on religion, neat clean, independent, etc. They are all assimilating at a rapid rate.

In sum, the difference in religion played a large part in the town's characters. Catholic are fun, Calvists are driven. I know this is a lot of POV. Taking the 80% to 0%, however, in my opinion missed the mark. I'll try to add some documented examples when I have time. Jhuiting 00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to them. I understand you are a Dutch American yourself? Might I ask what you last name is? Rex 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three quite prominent Dutch Americans blanked from article

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more you play games, the more I revert. Find sources that call these men "Dutch Americans." It's unlikely you'll find them, as they're not considered that, but you might (albeit they have to be reliable). Until then, dicussion is over. Bulldog123 (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Rik Smits

Why was Rik Smits removed in this edit, when his own article states that he is a "Dutch American"? It may be possible for some Dutch individuals who have lived for many years in the U.S. to have acquired dual citizenship, or to be considered "permanent residents" of the U.S. Such long-time residents are often considered as "X Americans," despite their lack of U.S. citizenship, because they have adopted the U.S. as their new home. Please use "Discussion" to propose such removals in the future. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Removing and Changing Dutch American

As all European American have, I also created Pictures in the infobox that represent a examples of Dutch or partial Dutch ancestry as the first edited article describe it So stop vandalising this article for nothing that have only diminuing it and removing essensial things. Any rejection will be Posted here thanks 41.249.102.123 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue almost all of the additions are dubious at best. De Niro is an American with mostly Italian ancestry, Bush's lineage comes from England. They may have some Dutch ancestry but this does not make them Dutch-Americans, and they're not suitable as representatives for this article. You will have to provide sources for your edit or I will have to remove the images again per the guidelines Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferJ (talk • contribs) 08:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should revise a bit your infos. Bush family came from different corners of Europe including Netherlands, and D Niro is from French, German, Dutch, English and Italian ancestry, thats, you can find it in Wikipedia himself. Well not good to remove Images, but very bad to remove others that pruv have entierly Dutch heritage like Roosevelt or Meester, same for Streep and Applegate, thanks 41.249.47.216 (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source for its articles. I think most of your additions don't identify themselves as Dutch-Americans and should not be listed in this article. Also, your vandalizing edits here and here don't exactly speak to your credibility. LuciferJ (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what you gotta do if all Dutch americans are sharing different identities, and the most well known in fact.

just sayed if you remove those pictures, you can't find a real Dutch American to represent the colonizing power, Im speaking naturally about Nederland; 41.251.27.66 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagcruft

I've removed the flagcruft in this article. Flags do not represent ethnic groups. They represent countries. DHN (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this removal, which was unnecessary. Badagnani (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using flags to represent ethnic groups is problematic, and the problem is further confounded when the people do not live in their so-called "homeland". For example, for Chinese American, which flag should be used, the PRC or the ROC? Should the flag of Israel be used to represent Jews? Should a national flag that is strenuously opposed by the very group that it's supposed to represent be used to represent them? (see Vietnamese American#Political activism and Flag of the Republic of Vietnam) The flag of the Netherlands was adopted in 1937, and I think it's safe to say that most Dutch Americans have ancestors who arrived in the US long before this flag was used. What's the meaning of this flag? Do Dutch Americans pledge alliegiance to this flag? DHN (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a problem (as with the RVN/DRV flags), the flags can be left out. When there's not, the flags can be left in. Badagnani (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Badagnani, stop removing flags, to the cause that all european that colonize America have one, so no Barbary here in wikipedia. 41.251.27.66 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does having the Dutch flag in this article enhance it? Your reasoning that "all european that colonize America have one, so no Barbary here in wikipedia" makes no sense to me. Are Dutch Americans subjects to the Dutch crown? Are they represented by the Dutch embassy in the United States? I intend to remove flags representing countries from articles about ethnic groups whenver I see them. DHN (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do so, you gotta remove all other flags that represent the non indigenous people of North America, like if you still do not understand, France or Portugal, so let flags to each country her own; meantime, you are the only user that intend to remove a unecessary thing in wikipedia, so Im replacing it now, and if it is removed, it will be replaced by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.27.66 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument boils down to "if the other articles have it, this one should to". So if the other articles are removed as well, you have no objection to the flag being removed here? DHN (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, in fact they have been all removed, it has been a mistake, personally I prefere those articles with flags.

...Well its almost midnight here, I gotta sleep.