Talk:German-American Day

Typo?

Is there a typo here? George H.W. Bush was not elected president until 1988.

Perhaps "Vice" president Bush? Or it was instituted by president Reagan?

Right. This says that Reagan signed the holiday into law in 1987. I will look for some other sources, to check. Awolf002 22:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the HW reference. The first Google hit for "German-American Day" is to a Geocities page that includes a quote from HW at the beginning, and I think some editor read this and got confused. Tempshill 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany-American Day uses the founding date of Germantown, Pennsylvania which was actually a Dutch settlement?

So, according to this article Germany-American Day uses the founding date of Germantown, Pennsylvania "the first German settlement in the original thirteen American colonies". Looing at the Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania itself it says "Although the town's name indicates otherwise, Germantown was founded not by Germans, but by Dutch settlers[1], augmented with a much smaller number of people from present-day Germany, in 1681.". Ok, now I'm utterly confused. Looking at the history, it seems User:Rex Germanus contributed the majority of information change from "German settlers" to "Dutch settlers" but as I'm not familiar to the topic I can't comment on the reliability of his sources. In any case, it would probably be useful if someone could double-check the information given. CharonX/talk 02:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplified answer: 300 years ago there was no big distinction between Dutch and German, like there was no one between Canadians and Americans. Dutch groups often included some Germans from the "hinterland"... --188.107.221.249 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add: these families were of Dutch extraction, and were Mennonites who became Quakers. They left Holland partly for religious reasons (believe it or not)and subsequently left Germany for the same reason. Quakers had problems wherever they were, which is why Penn wanted to found his colony and gather them all in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibolata (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

proof?

"...the President called on Americans to observe the Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities such as mass parades, pogroms, the creation of comically evil secret polices and a rigid system of total conformity."

This sounds like a Reagan-joke, but is there proof? Regards, Tasmer (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it´s just the common wikipedia-shoah-business - "if it´s sumptin´ gurmun, it must be Nuuuuzi! Muh!" 82.113.106.88 (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Trump

Why are we making a point of noting that Trump proclaimed the date to be German-American Day? By doing so, we imply that between 1987 and 2017, no other president did it. Is that the case? If so, then that should be clearly stated. But if every president has made the proclamation, then there's nothing special about Trump's having done so and it doesn't need to be specifically highlighted. —howcheng {chat} 20:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obama also made this proclamation, I will remove it as not unique, thanks! Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mi1180-Concorde.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"There is some debate"

The same source for this:

The founding of Germantown on October 6, 1683, was to provide the date for German-American Day, though many of the first thirteen Quaker and Mennonite families in Germantown came from the Netherlands rather than from Germany; until 1710, according to linguist Nicoline van der Sijs, "Germantown remained predominantly Dutch".

Is being used to argue that there is "some debate" over the name of Germantown.

There is some debate as to whether these people were Dutch rather than German.[11][12]

Debate according to whom, Dutch nationalists? Americans who try to frame things in borders that didn't actually exist in 1680? According to a source with a point of view that is ignoring every known fact? How about the fact that the settlers would have seen themselves as Deitsch, which is neither Deutsch nor Dutch, or the fact that the dialect they would have spoke spread from across these imaginary Dutch Deutsch borders which did not even exist in 1680? Or how about the fact that the Dutch population was up to 60% immigrant from the surrounding regions and "German" hinterland in the first place, and that the settlers in Pennsylvania had first lived in the Netherlands, then located to "Germany" and only then relocated to the United States? This article is pure misinformation and garbage, pot stirring for no reason. Who is questioning this name "Germantown" other than some Dutch-sounding writer who nobody has ever heard of? Why does this have such weight in an article, especially when it appears to be added by a user who has been banned? "Nevertheless" named - as in they ignored this fact and the town took the name anyway? What a bunch of goofy POV-pushing nonsense. But go ahead, revert me. I have better things to do than fix this terrible article on the anniversary of German-American Day, anyway. Glad to know truth about a town's name is whatever some Dutch linguist decides it is.

What on earth are you talking about. Look at the more recent version. I don't know what pot you are trying to stir here, or what user you are pointing at, or what, but I'll take the authority of a book written by Nicoline van der Sijs and published by a university press over your musings. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So a Dutch linguist gets to decide whether there is a "debate' over whether a name is proper for a town? Glad to see you enforce this. Maybe if you took five seconds to scroll up you would see that this issue was addressed and the user appears to be Germanicus Rex. Why would Germantown be "Dutch" if nobody there ever considered themselves "Dutch" and even spoke what we would refer to as "Dutch"? LOL— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.198.28.70 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No, smartass. The Dutch linguist doesn't say there is a debate, which is why I removed it from the text. Instead of me scrolling up for no discernible reason, maybe you should look at the article text more carefully. And yeah, I'll take the Dutch linguist's word for it over yours. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

look at yourself, defending this garbage:

the founding of Germantown on October 6, 1683, was to provide the date for German-American Day, though many of the first thirteen Quaker and Mennonite families in Germantown came from the Netherlands rather than from Germany; until 1710, according to linguist Nicoline van der Sijs, "Germantown remained predominantly Dutch". The town was nevertheless named Germantown, as the direct vicinity of the settlement was inhabited by fifty-four German families who had accompanied Johan Printz to the Swedish settlement on the Delaware several years earlier and had resettled themselves.

weasel wording like "many" - we can't say how many, but we know there enough, correct? "Remained predominantly Dutch" - when was it ever Dutch to begin with, and who defined it as Dutch? Those people from "Holland" who settled in Germantown had first moved to (what became) Germany, so technically they were not coming from Holland. And, as if that were not enough to call this entire monstrosity into question, they never spoke Dutch, they never considered themselves Dutch, Dutch nationality among the people did not exist, so in what sense did they remain what they never were to begin with? And then this superfluous "nevertheless" to suggest that the naming itself is wrong. I'm not a smartass, I'm frustrated that you are wasting my time when I have much better things to do then point out how ridiculous this is and go through it point by point. Since you have nothing better to do then lurk, revert and sit on Wikipedia all day, please use your knowledge to affix the proper versions of the tags I have added. Good day, thank you for trying to ruin mine.

OK, the source says "a number"; I'll be happy to adjust. You want to accuse van der Sijs of weasel words? If you want to wage a discussion over Dutch/Deutsch/Diets, do it somewhere else. And really, "Those people from "Holland" who settled in Germantown had first moved to Germany, so technically they were not coming from Holland"--that's hilarious. First of all, if they were from Holland, they came from Holland. Second, there were Anabaptists all over the Low Countries and Germany, and Menno Simons came from Friesland--the Western (Dutch) part, not the Eastern (German) part, so why you are so insistent in suggesting that "all Mennonites came from Germany" is a mystery to me. Finally, if Van der Sijs says "remained predominantly Dutch", that what we'll have until you come along with a better, printed source. Toodles. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, i see. So now the issue is not the use of weasel words, but the idea as to whether the source is so untouchable that they should be allowed to be using weasel words. Not surprised to see this on Wikipedia - direct contradiction of their policy, but typical of the monitoring elite in their insistence to simply parrot whatever some random academic says and adopt that as truth, even if it is weasel wording (or, in this case, complete nonsense) First of all, if they were from Holland, they came from Holland. Oh really? I'm sure that was the policy at Ellis Island too and every other immigration office in history, they wanted to know where you were born, not what documents you had (sic). Hope you are having a good laugh of hilarity. After that, you refer to Germany when it did not even exist in 1680. What is Germany in 1680, ace? You have no authority whatsoever, I'll let this article remain your masterwork of garbage. Feel proud.

UPDATE: I was going to go, but I see that instead of adding a physical enumerable number, you added "a number of" - do you really think that improved the text and made it any less ? If you want to wage a discussion over Dutch/Deutsch/Diets, do it somewhere else. And so some DUTCH linguist should have authority to decide that Dietsch is most certainly Dutch, and therefore the Germans in Pennsylvania at the time in reference are Dutch and that her controversial and fringe view should stand alone and pour over into an article that has nothing to do with that debate at all, but color it, without any consideration for an alternative view? You don't find that a problem? Always just trying to shoo people away and preserve the status quo of whatever it is you say the status quo is - you probably should apply to work at Wikipedia, you'd fit in really well. And why did you add dots to everything? How can you be so new to not know how indenting works, and yet have the attitude and demeanor of a seasoned self-appointed Wikipedia monitor?

References