Talk:Dutch people

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

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

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

• Source: "Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook" by David Levinson gives some characteristics of the Dutch as an ethnic group (language, religion, pillarization).
  • This source emphasizes the role of religion in the daily life of an otherwise secular nation and calls pillarization a key feature of Dutch culture. (=Levinson 1998) Iblardi (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Source: Nijman 2005 lists the following key characteristics of Dutch culture: Calvinism, commercialism, frugality, tolerance, egalitarianism. Iblardi (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Source: Schryer 1998 devotes some pages to Dutch ethnicity, ethnogenesis, national character etc. In fact, it is exactly the type of source we have been looking for in previous discussions. Iblardi (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• More on the (relative) tolerance of Dutch society and its possible causes (such as: lack of feudal system, tradition of elite cooperation, conflict avoidance) in Pettigrew & Meertens 2003. Iblardi (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• De Jager (1981) notes that many of the cultural phenomena he describes also occur in the neighbouring countries. Iblardi (talk) 10:20, 8 June 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

• Source: Manors and Markets: Economy and Society in the Low Countries 500-1600 by Bas Van Bavel has info on the early ethnic makeup of the Low Countries. Fram (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Source: Bruc ealles well: archaeological essays concerning the peoples of North-West Europe in the first millennium AD (2004) on the same subject. Iblardi (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

• On self-identification of the medieval Netherlanders: according to Blockmans 2006, the notion that there was already any collective "Netherlandic" identity in 1400 is generally discounted by historians. Iblardi (talk) 14:05, 13 May 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)

• Arnade 1997 briefly explores the possible role of ethnicity in the political tensions between the cities of Flanders and the Dukes of Burgundy in the 15th century. Iblardi (talk) 07:54, 13 May 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)

• According to source Goosens, 2001, it would be an anachronism to describe the Dutch Revolt against Philip II in terms of ethnic nationhood. Iblardi (talk) 17:58, 13 May 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."

• Source: Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives (Volume I) by J. Fishman and O. García (eds.) (2010) speaks of what appear to be multiple ethnical identities in the case of the Frisians in the Netherlands (called West Frisians here), including, for some at least, the Dutch one (p. 213-214). A second source notes that "there is no barrier to a duality of ethnicity" and mentions "Frisian ethnicity within a Dutch ethnicity" as an example. Iblardi (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Source: Ethnicity counts by William Petersen discusses at length the Flemings, and touches on the Greater Dutch idea, and the language unity and differences between Netherlands and Flanders. The book concludes that while there is affinity between the two groups, they will not form one country anytime soon, and generally treats Flemings as a separate ethnicity. Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: Catholic power in the Netherlands by Herman Bakvis: concludes that there is no obvious ethnic division between the Catholic Dutch and other Dutch people. Doesn't mention ethnic links with non-Dutch groups. Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The social psychology of ethnic identity by M. Verkuyten discusses the reasons why Moluccans, born in the Netherlands, speaking Dutch, don't consider themselves to be ethnically Dutch, with the main reason being cultural differences, and racial differences as a second reason. Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups by Stephan Thernstrom distinguishes between Dutch (coming from the Netherlands) and Flemings (one of the two ethnic groups coming from Belgium). The Frisians are also separately discussed, with the mention that they often self-identify (in the United States) as Dutch (orGerman or Danish, depending on their country of origin). Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The Netherlandic presence in Ontario: pillars, class and Dutch ethnicity by Frans J. Schryer discusses the Dutch ethnicity, and considers the Dutch and Flemish as two ethnicities, mainly based on their country of origin. Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The source actually seems to distinguish both by nationality; not ethnicity. Compare: The Canadians they encountered were usually not aware these two immigrant groups represented different nationalities & The ethnic boundaries between the Dutch and Belgians (Flemish, red.) are less clear-cut.HP1740-B (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • He speaks of boundaries nonetheless... Anyway, this source actually elaborates on Dutch ethnicity, starting at p. 14. Perhaps this section can help us give the article a firmer base. Iblardi (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The CIA World Factbook gives the different Ethnic groups of the world by country. The Dutch are only mentioned in the Netherlands, for Belgium the designation Fleming is used. Fram (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The Joshuaproject, so far used in this article, unclear whether it is a reliable source or not; gives the ethnic makeup of the Netherlands, with Dutch, Frisians, Flemings, ... as separate groups (also includes mixed groups like Jew, Dutch or Gypsy, Dutch). Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The Joshua project is runn by religious zealots (missionaries) and provides little to no source material to back up their claims.HP1740-B (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The ethnic origins of nations (1986) speaks of a separate Flemish ethnicity on p. 28. Note that the criterion mentioned here, a unique combination of language shared with the Dutch and religion shared with the Walloons, is not sufficient by itself (as this is also true for the southern part of the Netherlands), but it is one among several characteristics mentioned by the author as defining an ethnic group. Iblardi (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: Y-Haplogroup Frequencies in the Flemish Population by Gerhard Mertens discusses genetics in relation to ethnic groups, focusing on the separate ethnic group of the Flemish. Noteworthy is the inclusion of "the southern part of the Dutch province of Zeeland known as Zeeuws-Vlaanderen". Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Suddenly genetics are noteworthy? How enormously selfcontradictory. Anyway; the source (on a personal homepage) speaks of genetic samples from what is essentially the old Flemish county. It does not speak of "Ethnic Flemish gene samples".HP1740-B (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Just like most reasonable people, I try to present all sides of a debate, not just my preferred one. I vageuely recall that it has been mentioned that ethnicity may, according to some people, be defined or determinde (partially) by genetics. So I presented a source including genetics. Furthermore, you misread the source and my summary: it doesn't state that the Flemings are ethnically separate because of their genetics, it starts with the idea that the Flemish are a separate ethnic group (for whatever reason), and then continues to research one genetic aspect of them. And where did you get the idea that it is about "what is essentially the old Flemish county."? The definition used is "the ethnic group native to Flanders (the northern half of Belgium, historically part of the Southern Netherlands)" plus two small adjacent groups. Finally, what you describe as "a personal homepage" is a subpage of the main page for the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. Fram (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I repeat myself in saying that you're being a hypocrite by suddenly cosidering a 'genetic pov' possiblity and refer back to my previous objections to the origins of the source and the interpretation of it given by the above contributor.HP1740-B (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:NPA, and it is quite useless to "refer back to your previous objections" when they have been shown to be incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
          • They still stand, for anyone (willing) to see.HP1740-B (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The ideology of the extreme right by Cas Mudde], indicating that the idea that the Dutch and the Flemish are together one ethnic group also exists, and the Frisians can also be considered as a subgroup, not a separate group. Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: The ethnic phenomenon by Pierre L. Van den Berghe, indicating that at least historically, Flanders and the Netherlands belonged together ethnically. Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: What is a nation?: Europe 1789-1914 by Timothy Baycroft, Mark Hewitson discusses how the ethnic bond between Flanders and the Netherlands was already weak at the time of the Belgian Revolution, and how afterwards a Flemish ethnic consciousness arose. Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The source above discusses the post-revolutionary situation. Also, the emergence of ethnic consiousness among the Flemish doesn't have to mean (the text itself gives no reason to think so, speaking mostly on language-issues) that these are specifically Flemish ethnic issues.HP1740-B (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What do you mean with "specifically Flemish ethnic issues"? Fram (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Flemings 'becoming ethnically concious' of being of different herritage, culture and language ... was in relation to Walloons. Not Dutch.HP1740-B (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Source: Social problems in global perspective by Ronald M. Glassman, William H. Swatos, Barbara J. Denison states that as an ethnic group, Flanders should be part of the Netherlands. Fram (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • However, it is worth noting that this source gives a strangely inaccurate account of Flemish/Belgian history in its most general outline. (Discussed before at [1].) Iblardi (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Though none of its claims on ethnicity seem to be based on that inaccurate summary of Belgian history.HP1740-B (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • • In fact, no arguments are presented at all for these claims. It is simply stated that "the people of Flanders are Dutch and hold to Dutch customs". Iblardi (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
          • It's a summary, what's to be expected?HP1740-B (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Some factual accuracy might be nice. Iblardi (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Again, do not, whatever your intentions, confuse the history bit (which is obviously incorrect) to the sociological bit ... which neither you or I have any rational reasons to doubt.HP1740-B (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Actually, we do have rational reasons to doubt. Of course, in matters of faith it's a different thing. Iblardi (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yet one might be expected to have some familiarity with the subject if one's judgment is to be taken seriously. Iblardi (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
        • But what's the unfamiliar subject here? History or ethnography? Let's not speculate.HP1740-B (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Let's put it this way: I have no reason to doubt the authors' competence regarding "social problems in global perspective", the point of view from which the book is written, but the short passage on the Flemish situation obviously has a lot of problems. Apart from all the historical errors, the source also claims that the main religious affiliation in the Netherlands is Protestantism rather than Catholicism. It is easily verifiable that this is not the case. What the source should perhaps have said -or wanted to say- is that the North used to have a Protestant majority and a strong Protestant tradition, but it doesn't say so. Such errors and inaccuracies lead to the most obvious conclusion that there is a lack of in-depth knowledge regarding the Dutch/Flemish/Walloon situation. Iblardi (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• 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 hope that you aren't seriously suggesting that there isn't a qualitative difference between a factual error and a typo? Iblardi (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
                • I'm saying that "This wrong, so that must be wrong too"-reasoning is very dangerous and has no base.HP1740-B (talk) 12:31, 11 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)
  • See Dutch Culture in a European Perspective: 1650, hard-won unity, by Willem Frijhoff, Marijke Spies (2004), for a similar development in Italian, where "Fiandria" was the name for the entire coastal area before the political break-up and Holland's ascendancy in the North. Iblardi (talk) 23:40, 12 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)
    • I doubted on how to translate "gelijkgeaard" but its synonyms (eendrachtig, gelijkgezind) are closer to "common" than to "similar".HP1740-B (talk) 12:39, 11 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)
              • I think you intended this post to be at the Couwenberg discussion, otherwise it makes no sense at all... Fram (talk) 13:24, 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)
  • I don't think this can be considered a reliable source for the study of ethnicity, despite its title. Fram (talk) 11:29, 10 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

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)

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)

Historical Flemings

If all the above is neccesary to merely ´´prove´´ a Dutch ethnic group in the middle ages, it seems to me that the same goes for Flemings. When you, Framm, speak of Flemish and Dutch (ie a split) in the 14th century, then you 'll need to provide sources. Gelijke monniken gelijke kappen is a Dutch proverb, so I'm sure someone from Flanders knows it too.HP1740-B (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this article is about Dutch people, evidence has to be provided for the existence of Dutch people as an ethnic group in the middle ages. Whether there was one Flemish group as well, or none, or several groups (Flemish, Brabant, Limburg-Liège, ...) is irrelevant for this article. Anyway, if this is still about the Bruges image, I have provided plenty sources stating that Bruges at the time was a Flemish city (no matter if this is current Flemish or county Flemish). Not asingle source has been provided stating that Bruges wsa a 14th century Dutch city. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, because you do not learn, you confuse regional identity, political affiliation and modern connotations of the word 'Fleming' with ethnicity.HP1740-B (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have no arguments and go back to personal attacks? Anyway, I have provided below excerpts from the "History of the Low Countries", indicating very clearly that to discuss the Low Countries in the 14th century as if they are one is ridiculous. 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prove the existence of a Flemish ethnic group in 1300. If you're done with that please prove its existence today.HP1740-B (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Prove the existence of a Dutch ethnic group in 1300." For today's Flemish, the matter is actually disputed. For the existence of a 14th-century Dutch ethnic group I have not found a single source to date. If you know of any, please show them. Iblardi (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

HP1740-B, for the umpteenth time, I have no need to prove a Flemish ethnic group in 1300, and I don't claim that there was one. This article is about the Dutch ethnic group. You are the one claiming that Bruges was a Dutch city in the middle ages, and that the inhabitants of Flanders (either the County or the current geographic region) belonged to the Dutch ethnic group at the time. You have to provide evidence of your claims to include this in this article. As long as you don't do this conclusively, all references to the Flemish, Flemish cities, ... as part of some medieval, pre-Burgundian period Dutch ethnic group should be removed from this article. Fram (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything you write needs proof. It's as simple as that.HP1740-B (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Everything you write needs proof." Very well. The citations on this talk page show that there was no unity in language, mentality and culture, there was no sense of solidarity, political or otherwise, and there did not exist an ethnonym for "Dutch people" before the unification under the Burgundian dukes. This is all sourced. You have not contributed any "proof" that supports your position. Iblardi (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Single issues

Belgian Revolt a traumatizing experience

The article states:

The Belgian Revolt was a traumatizing experience.

Insofar as the Netherlands are concerned, this statement is contradicted by Kossmann: "Uit zo'n rijmsel (sc. some verses cited above) blijkt wat overal in Nederland in de jaren 1830 bleek: de Belgische Afscheiding werd in Nederland niet als een wezenlijk probleem gevoeld." ("Is het Nederlandse volk door de scheiding van 1830 'wakker geschud'?", Politieke theorie en geschiedenis. Verspreide opstellen en voordrachten (1987), 364-372, esp. 370) Iblardi (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant those lines more the in sense of that it disrupted political relations between the two countries; which didn't fully normalize untill after WWI, creating a distance between the two. HP1740-B (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating a Belgian nation

In Belgium, the process of creating a nation was much slower than in the Netherlands. This was caused by the fact that rather than being a mono-ethnic independent state, like the Dutch Republic, the territories which would become Belgium remained part of large multi-ethnic, empires until the Napoleonic Wars drew to a close.

This unsourced statement seems to be contradicted by Lode Wils, "Verleden en toekomst van een natie", in Vlaanderen, België, Groot-Nederland. Mythe en geschiedenis (1994), p. 456-457: "Het proces van de omvorming van de oude Zuidnederlandse etnie tot een moderne natie was daarmee niet alleen vroeger voltooid, maar ook met een grotere consensus dan in de meeste Europese landen." "De Noordelijke Nederlanden (...) misten tot 1848 en gedeeltelijk nog langer het goed dat een natie volwaardig maakt: de volkssoevereiniteit. België vormde een natie (...) [M]aar het was minder een staat te noemen..." "De omvorming van 'peasants into Belgians' (...) was zeker een van de vroegste op het Europese vasteland." Iblardi (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what the author means by "Belgians"?HP1740-B (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He means Belgians, i.e. both French- and Dutch-speaking, whom he says initially formed a nation according to the definition given by American sociologist Karl W. Deutsch (p. 457), with a Flemish sub-nation only appearing after the attainment of independence (p. 458). This Belgian nation, according to him, had developed from an earlier Southern Netherlandic ethnie. Vos 1993 (see further above) also speaks of a Southern Netherlands ethnic community developing during the 17th and 18th centuries (p. 130). Iblardi (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then we should mention in the article that a Belgian nation once existed (could you pinpoint the dates mentioned in the text?) which then either disolved or split. The perception of which, I suppose, rests in political preference.HP1740-B (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Privilege of 1477

As requested, I will explain why I placed a "fact" tag in the paragraph concerning the Great Privilege of 1477. It says:

In 1477, the year of Charles' sudden death at Nancy, the Low Countries rebeled against their new liege, Mary of Burgundy and presented her with a set of demands. The subsequently issued great privilege met a lot of these demands (which included that Dutch, not French, should be the administrative language and that the states general had the right to hold meetings without the monarch's permission or presence) and despite the fact that the overall tenure of the document (which was declared void by her son, and successor, Philip IV) aimed for more autonomy for the Dutch counties and duchies, the fact that all Dutch fiefs presented their demands together, rather than separately, are evidence that by this time a sense of political unity had clearly emerged.

This is a misrepresentation in the sense that it disregards the fact that it was primarily a collective undertaking of the Burgundian Netherlands. It gives undue weight to the Dutch provinces on behalf of their being Dutch. Clarification:

• The Privilege was granted to all provinces, not just the Dutch but also the French-speaking ones. See WPGN 1, p. 283: "...werd door de Staten-Generaal aan Maria van Bourgondië afgedwongen en beoogde de centralistische politiek van de Bourgondiërs te vervangen door een politiek waarbij de gewestelijke instellingen hun oude macht zouden terugkrijgen." "Op de belangrijkste bijeenkomst van de Staten-Generaal waren, op Luxemburg en Gelre na, alle Bourgondische landen 'van herwaarts over' vertegenwoordigd. (...) Op 11 februari verleende Maria aan de Staten-Generaal het beroemde Groot Privilege..."; G. Nijsten, "Het Groot-Privilege van Maria van Bourgondië (1477)", pp. 38-39: "De vertegenwoordigers van alle territoria hadden hun grieven verzameld en gebundeld."; Gosses/Post, p. 230: "...terwijl Vlaanderen en alle gewesten tezamen op 11 februari 1477 een privilege ontvingen (Groot Privilege) en Holland en Zeeland op 14 maart."
• In fact, some of the Walloon provinces were involved in the negotiations at an earlier date than some of the Dutch-speaking ones. See A.G. Jongkees, "Het groot privilege van Holland en Zeeland (14 maart 1477): "Toen op 3 februari 1477 te Gent de jonge hertogin Maria het woord richtte tot de vergadering van de gezamenlijke Staten harer landen van herwaarts over (van 'Staten-Generaal' sprak men nog niet) waren afgevaardigden van edelen en steden van Holland, Zeeland en (West-)Friesland daar nog niet bij aanwezig. Deze deputatie ... zal ... zeker niet vóór de 21ste zijn aangekomen. Het algemene privilege, dat een weergave was van door de vergaderden schriftelijk ingediende 'pointen ende articlen', was toen reeds verleend." Military affairs, meanwhile, had also been taken care of: "Hierover hadden de anderen, uit Brabant, Vlaanderen, Artesië, Henegouwen en Namen, een plan ontworpen (...), dat ook reeds met hun medewerking rekening hield."
• The Privilege contained a clausule regulating the language of administration; however, rather than that "Dutch, not French, should be the administrative language", this language could be either "Duytsch" or "Walsche". The original text, linked to in a footnote, has: "item, dat onse secretarisse, tot onsen vornoemden Rade behouvende, zullen wesen in alzulken redelike ghetale, als ons ghelieven zal, uut onsen vorscreven landen, conende ten minsten beede de talen, Walsche ende Duytsch"; "item, dat de zaken, die voor onsen voornoemden Grooten Raed ghehandelt zullen werden uut eenighe van de vorsz. landen, zullen werden beleet ende ghedinght tusschen denghonen, dien't ancleeft, in alsulker talen, als men ghemeenlic spreect in de landen, daer de verweerers wonachtich zijn". Now, "Duytsch" also referred to those regions that spoke dialects that we would not, or hardly, now consider to be Dutch, such as Luxemburg and Limburg: "Vlaanderen, Brabant en Henegouwen ... dwongen samen het Groot Privilege af, dat voor de Nederlanden een aantal grieven moest wegnemen..." "Het bepaalde dat de Grote Raad ... zou bestaan uit negen vertegenwoordigers "uut onsen Walsschen landen" met Bourgondië en Picardië inbegrepen, en zestien "uut onsen Duytsschen landen" waaronder Luxemburg, Limburg en Overmaas..." (Lode Wils, Van Clovis tot Di Rupo: de lange weg van de naties in de Lage Landen, p. 50-51). There is no evidence that this stipulation was caused by any form of specifically Dutch proto-nationalism; rather, this was intended to protect the defendant: "In de plaats kwam weer de Grote Raad, opnieuw rondreizend, wel tweetalig, dwz. dat de processen zouden worden gevoerd in de taal van de verweerder, niet in die van de eiser en dat men bij moeilijkheden het Frans zou nemen, waar Parlement en Grote Raad zich vroeger uitsluitend van deze taal bedienden." (WPGS 1, p. 296)
• All of this resulted in the appointment, not of a Dutchman, but of Jean de la Bouverie, who, judging by his name, was apparently a Francophone person who also spoke Dutch; moreover, he was a 'Netherlander': "Hij [het hoofd van de Grote Raad] moest bovendien naast het Latijn en het Frans ook het Diets machtig zijn, met het gevolg dat niet de Bourgondiër Jean Carondelet maar de Brabander Jean de la Bouverie hoofd werd." (p. 293)

From the above, it cannot be argued that "a sense of political unity had clearly emerged" among the Dutch provinces as a distinct group. Iblardi (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course we all agree to add to the Dutch ethnic group the inhabitants of the Walloon provinces, as well as parts of Northern France (e.g. Artois) and Luxembourg ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This does raise doubts. Then again; I have begun to have doubt on the importance of 'political unity' as a whole ...HP1740-B (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nations are often seen as the political manifestation of an ethnic group, so this kind of group solidarity can be telling, had it been there. Iblardi (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch as a historical ethnic group before the 16th century

I would like to move on with the discussion and try to apply some theoretical framework to the material collected. A good place to start would be Anthony D. Smith's The ethnic origins of nations (1987) (often quoted). The author has given a number of "dimensions of ethnie" by which historical ethnic groups may be recognized:

• 1. A collective name. "This is the identifying mark of an ethnos in the historical record." p. 23: "Are there any unnamed ethnie (...)? I do not know of any." "In general, however, collective names are a sure sign and emblem of ethnic communities, by which they distinguish themselves and summarize their 'essence' to themselves". (p. 22)
• 2. A common myth of descent. "In many ways the sine qua non of ethnicity, ... myths of origin and descent provide the means of collective location in the world and the charter of the community which explains its origins, growth and destiny." (p. 24)
• 3. A shared history. "Ethnie are nothing if not historical communities build up on shared memories." (p. 25) "'History' in this sense must tell a story, it must please and satisfy as narrative, it must be all of a piece, like the Homeric epics and Ossian. It must also educate. The heroes and heroines whose deeds it unfolds must embody the virtues held precious by the community and conform to its stereotypes - the Indian holy man, the Turkish warrior, the Jewish sage." (p. 26)
• 4. A distinctive shared culture. "Over and above myths of descent and common memories, ethnie are differentiated by one or more elements of 'culture' which both help to bind members together and to separate them from outsiders." (p. 26) "The most common shared and distinctive traits are those of language and religion; but customs, institutions, laws, folklore, architecture, dress, food, music and the arts, even colour and physique, may augment the differences or take their place." "...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)
• 5. An association with a specific territory. "Ethnie always possess ties to a particular locus or territory, which they call their 'own'." (p. 28)
• 6. A sense of solidarity. "It is also a community with a definite sense of identity and solidarity which often finds institutional and philanthropic expression." (p. 29)

Of Smith's definition, I find lacking for the Netherlands in late medieval times: 1. a collective name (cf. Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953] ["'Netherlanders' was common neither among foreigners nor among the inhabitants themselves"], LexMa ["Der Begriff der N. ist in ma. hist. Quellen unbekannt."]); 2. a common myth of descent (simply not mentioned for the Netherlands at large; the Batavian Myth may qualify for 16th-17th ct. Holland [cf. De Vos 1995, "how ethnic identity is fabricated"]); 3. a shared history (cf. Gosses/Post 1959 ["It is not entirely reasonable in view of the political relationships of the 13th century" etc.], Kooij 1987 [for Groningen "incorporation into some sort of German confederacy was much more probable"]; in subjective sense later Flanders [Conscience, "Lion of Flanders", 19th ct.] may qualify, but none found for the 16th-ct. Netherlands); 4. a distinctive shared culture (cf. for the Netherlands in general LexMa ["not yet found a strong cultural identity"]; for Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and Gelderland in particular, cf. Huizinga 2007 [1948-1953] ["the (later) political alignment furthered the mutual ethnographic and cultural assimilation"], WPGN 1977 [Dutch-German linguistic border], Feenstra 2007 & 2008 [the east slowly penetrated by the culture of Holland, "mentally not yet a province"]); 5. a sense of solidarity (Blockmans 2006 [no collective "Netherlandic" identity in 1400]; also see the comments on the Great Privilege above). [The proper citations and bibliography are given at the RfC-section.]

My conclusion can be none other than that if we apply Smith's definition of a historical ethnic group, the existence of a Dutch ethnicity before the 16th century is not, in all reasonability, supported by the evidence of the sources collected above, and that Dutch ethnogenesis therefore must be placed at a later date. Note that all of this does not preclude the existence of regional cultures, or of a degree of linguistic conscience of Dutch/German vs. French speakers.

If anyone thinks that this conclusion is for some reason invalid, please let me know and explain why. Iblardi (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly for the period before 1400, I think your conclusion is correct. Instead of one group, you had basically three, one centered around Flanders, one around Holland, and one on Limburg (Loon, Liège), with Brabant as a kind of intermediate. Flanders was much more French oriented (political, but also linguistic, literary), while Limburg was much more German-oriented (with e.g. people like Henrik van Veldeken). A sense of being simultaneously related to each other and separate of others (France, Germany) seems only to have emerged with the Burgundian unification of the region, and has probably lasted only about 100 to 150 years, until the separation of the Dutch Republic. The "History of the Low Countries"[5] is a good source for this, with reminders that e.g. Flanders was a bilingual region for much of the time, and Limburg would be considered trilingual in todays time (Dutch, German and French, without an actual distinction between Dutch and German in reality though). Like it says on page 31: "All the major powers of the Low countries had fought together at Bouvines, but it would be a mistake to interpret this as growing regional unity; each ruler had chosen to fight for his own reasons, and drifted apart after Bouvines." And page 32: "If any regional unity or cohesiveness existed in the thirteenth-century Low Countries, it was because of a coincidence of divergent interests, riven together by geographical conditions, particularly the tangle of rivers and the proximity of the sea." Later on, page 82, we have "The Low Countries of the lmate fourteenth century hardly constituted a unified whole, and only the most prescient seer could have predicted the subsequent political events which welded the region together." And page 83: "Contemporary historians, however, discount the notion that there was any collective "Netherlandic" identity in 1400." By the mid-15th century however, (page 114): "The core regions of the Low Countries, however, had reached such a level of political integration that they desired to maintain their mutual ties". So by then a political unity of sorts was achieved. Page 119: "Only in the mid sixteenth century did people attempt to give a name to these so-called Seventeen Provinces: Nederland or Nederlanden in Dutch and Pais Bas in French, or Belgique(s) from the Latin." Fram (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The article, by using the 'ethnic framework' already adresses this problem. Quite nicely I think, so in my opinion this information can be easily intergrated into the existing structure. HP1740-B (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That is part of the problem. The way the model is used in the article does not seem to correspond with its intended use. Cf. Jasna Čapo Žmegač, Strangers either way: the lives of Croatian refugees in their new home, 123-124: "The migrants' constitution as a subnational community is the result of their social differentiation and boundary making vis-a-vis other social groups..." "Ethnic incorporation is most frequently initiated by intellectuals whereby ethnic communities become participants in economic competition in modern societies. Don Handelman analyzed ethnicity in terms of a four-fold continuum of organizational incorporation: it starts as an ethnic category, develops into an ethnic network, an ethnic association, and culminates as an ethnic community. The ethnic category merely labels members of a community - the name identifies them and establishes a boundary toward other social groups. (...) The activities of the migrant association will be analyzed precisely from the viewpoint of those different forms of ethnic incorporation."; Thomas H. Erikson, "Economies of ethnicity", in: James G. Carrier (ed.), A handbook of economic anthropology, 353-369, esp. 354: "It may be useful to distinguish between four degrees of ethnic incorporation. Following Handelman (1977), ethnic categories exist whenever people conventionally distinguish one another on the basis of imputed cultural or 'racial' characteristics. Ethnic networks exist whenever certain coveted resources flow between members of the ethnic category, but not outside its boundaries. Ethnic associations exist whenever the ethnic category is formally or informally organised and has a recognised leadership. Finally, ethnic communities are territorially based and thus offer their members a wide array of resources, ranging from jobs and housing to ontological security."; same author, Ethnicity and nationalism, 41-42: "The least incorporated kind of ethnic collectivity is the ethnic category, which provides its members little in terms of tangible valuables. (...) In Mauritius, the Creoles ay be said to be an ethnic category. They consider themselves, and are considered by others, as culturally distinctive." "In Mauritius, the Franco-Mauritians may be said to constitute an ethnic network. As they are a small numerical minority in a parliamentary democracy, they lack shared political organisation and do not function as a visible interest group, but there remains a strong sense of solidarity and cultural uniqueness. There are strong moral obligations for Franco-Mauritians to support each other on an individual basis." (My bolding.)

In other words, the fourfold division seems mostly (exclusively?) to be applied to modern multi-ethnic states, especially dealing with immigrant communities, and concerns itself primarily with the distribution of economical resources between members of a pre-existing ethnic group. Now how can this be reconciled with the content of the article? Notice that even the lowest level of incorporation, the "ethnic category", already assumes a common culture and a common name. It has been shown that this not the case for the "proto-Dutch" inhabitants of the Low Countries in the early Middle Ages. Yet the article describes them as an "ethnic category". It seems to me that, on second thought, Handelman's categorization is not useful for our purpose. Iblardi (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This only proves the concept can also be applied to immigrants ... As to the last section; I've already told you that, that is a matter of interpretation.HP1740-B (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that easy. Let's analyse the passage concerned:

The first stage of Dutch ethnogenesis falls within the frame of an ethnic category. This essentially means that though certain characteristics of the Dutch ethnic group start to appear, the people displaying these traits did not have any, or a very limited, awareness of belonging to this specific group.[36][37]

The cited source (Anthony Smith) has: "Ethnic categories are populations distinguished by outsiders as possessing the attributes of a common name or emblem, a shared cultural element (usually language or religion), and a link with a particular territory." (Ethnic communities, according to the same source, actually possess an awareness of their being a unique group and additionally have a myth of common ancestry, shared historical traditions, and a sense of group solidarity.) Strictly following Smith's description, this means that there supposedly was a time, during the early Middle Ages (i.e., when the ethnic category supposedly existed), when the Dutch formed a population "distinguished by outsiders as possessing the attributes of a common name or emblem, a shared cultural element (usually language or religion), and a link with a particular territory" without actually displaying any sense of ethnic group solidarity. It is reasonable to ask, then, what this "common name or emblem" might be for the Dutch group. A common name is not reported, as is shown by the quotation from LexMa; "Netherlands" in its broader sense was lacking until approximately the middle of the 16th century (and even then it included the Walloons), whereas "Duytsch" of course does not just pertain to the Dutch, but also to the Germans. Also, no "common emblem" of any kind has hitherto been found in the sources for the early medieval Germanic-speaking inhabitants of the Low Countries. As a "shared cultural element", religion will not do, since Christianity was the universal religion of Western Europe, with no special status for the Low Countries. Language might be a factor, as we read that dialects spoken in the Low Countries started to develop a number of shared characteristics around the 8th century (Het Nederlands vroeger en nu). However, there is no evidence that the Dutch, as a group, were "distinguished by outsiders" as having a language of their own which made them recognizable as a distinct group (our 'category'). For the Dutch as a group, in this period, there is no (reported) shared name or emblem and there are no (reported) specific cultural traits: therefore, there can be no Dutch ethnic category. (A much stronger case could be made for the Frisians, by the way, but they are not the subject of this article.) Iblardi (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to be very careful with jumping to conclusions. If only because there is very little evidence, not for 'my' position, but for any position in the Early Middle Ages about anything. Have we looked at ecological similarities? Architecture? Trade routes? Literature? Furthermore, we are as much outsiders as anyone living at the time. If archeologists can establish different cultures based on a few pottery fragments, why should it be impossible to do so with the Dutch/proto-Dutch/proto-proto-Dutch or whatever you want to call them. I think the social situation of the early Middle ages should be mentioned though, it helps give a picture of how people lived at the time and explains why people wouldn' t have identified based on a common/extremely similar language or religion.HP1740-B (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. We don't have to look at anything you suggest, we have to report, to condense and summarize what the reliable sources have to say. What you are suggesting is original research, which is a violation of one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyhing of the kind ... that's just your prejudiced mind at work I suppose.HP1740-B (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Have we looked at ecological similarities? [Architecture?] Trade routes? [Literature?]" People have, and instead of unity, the conlusions seem to point to greater-than-average ethnic, cultural and ecological diversity for such a relatively small region: Van Bavel, Manors and Markets: Economy and Society in the Low Countries 500-1600 (2010), p. 31: "All in all, the Low Countries contained many different peoples, tribes, and cultures within a small area." "This diversity was perhaps greater than elsewhere in Europe." "Unfortunately, hardly any research has been done on the effects of the cultural, political, and ethnic diversity on later developments. It would be very interesting to know more about what remained of it after inclusion in the Frankish empire. Did these elements merge or retain much of their diversity?"; p. 407: "The enormous density of various geographical-pedological landscapes in the Low Countries, the result of the special genesis of this area, led to a high density of different economic regions. Associated with this, and even increased by the ethnic diversity, each of these regions acquired its specific socio-institutional characteristics with the occupation in the early or high Middle Ages." - Edit: bracketed "Architecture?" and "Literature?" in HP1740-B's quotation to make clear the exact relevancy of the material. Iblardi (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting book, I don't see much about architecture and literature straight away, though you make it seem it does, but I'm going to read into it straight away. Looks like an ideal source for this period of history.HP1740-B (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Iblardi (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

HP1740-B, please stop with the snide remarks. Whather I am prejudiced or not is not really relevant: a source is provided, and to contradict it, you ask "have we looked at ..."? If wewould be looking at architecture, ecology, ..., we would be presenting original research. Even if we would be looking at sources about the architecture in the Netherlands and Flanders, and then making conclusions from that about the ethnicity of the people, we would be creating a synthesis, which again is not allowed (WP:SYNTH). Fram (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fram, please stop at putting words in my mouth. When I say 'we' ought to look at architecture/economy/etc. I mean (of course) we should look at sources that elaborate on these subjects. Stop thinking about me, and go and look for the sources needed to back up your statements instead.HP1740-B (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put any words in your mouth, your wording was (again) very unclear. As for your other statement: if you would be so kind as to state what statements of me need sources to be eventually included in this article, I'll try to provide them. If you are still asking for sources about e.g. the fact that Bruges in the 14th century was not a Dutch city (Dutch-speaking, yes, but not a Dutch city) according to any source, then you can wait a lot longer, as you are the one who has to provide sources to back up your inclusion of picturesand claims in the article. I don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove the positive. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's bring in another citation. WPGN 1, chapter "De Middeleeuwen", p. 244, on culture (my bolding): "Daarom was het centrum bij uitstek de Rijn-Maasvallei, waar een opmerkelijke cultuur ontstond in de post-Karolingische tijd die tot in de vroege 13de eeuw bleef bloeien. Nijvel en Keulen, Nijmegen en Verdun waren de steden die dit gebied omzoomden (...) Vooral Luik was hier het centrum, helemaal nog gericht op en geïnspireerd door het Duitse Rijk." "Later en verschillend van inspiratie kwam Vlaanderen tot bloei, geschraagd door de vroege macht van het graafschap en door stimulerende invloed vanuit Frankrijk." "Tot de twee genoemde zones, Rijn-Maas en Vlaanderen, bleef zonder veel overdrijving de cultuur der Nederlanden beperkt tot in de 13de eeuw."; p. 246: "De twee zones die we hebben onderscheiden vormden natuurlijk maar delen van de grotere culturele en politieke complexen: het Maasland van Duitsland, Vlaanderen van Frankrijk."; p. 249, on literature: "De vraag of Hendrik van Veldeke nu behoort tot de Nederlandse of de Duitse literatuur is onzes inziens irrelevant, aangezien de tijdgenoot zelf nog geen onderscheid schijnt te hebben gemaakt tussen datgene wat we met moderne begrippen Oostnederlandse en Westduitse dialecten zouden noemen." Iblardi (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)