Sorry, but this is nonsense. We don’t object to being called English or to the idea that London is in England, what an odd observation. We object to the UK being confused with England – how many times even on this board have I read questions about the ‘Queen of England’ or ‘the English government’. That stuff just pisses off our Welsh, Scottish and N. Irish siblings, and we English get the blame for it. That’s why we object to it.
Pretty much that.
If you’re from England you pretty much get the blame for everything. Take, for example, this very thread. Someone casually mentioned “the English, basically subjugated surrounding nations, the Scots” which is demonstrably not true. One of the Scots’ prime motivating factors for the Acts of Union was that they were practically bankrupted due to their failed attempt at creating an Empire and deciding they would be in a better situation if they went along with England and did it with them instead (which then gets really weird when people from Scotland go on and on about the “Imperialistic English” of which the Scots wanted no part).
Personally I always refer to myself as British for two reasons:
- My Passport says “British Citizen”.
- With a Father from Northern England and a Mother from Scotland, I’m a mutt anyway.
The town I grew up in was predominantly Dutch, with a strong attachment to the tenets of the Reformed Church, which dominated the cultural undercurrents of the town. The non-Dutch residents called the Dutch “Hollanders”, often with a somewhat contemptuous edge tantamount to an epithet, but it was so commonplace, nobody took umbrage. The word “Netherlands” was unknown – they were simply Hollanders, descendants of settlers who came from Holland.
Keep in mind about the term “Dutch”: Considering what happened to the Netherlands at the hands of the * Deutsch * during World War I and World War II, it is no surprise that “Dutchmen” don’t really like the word.
The history of the English usage is a bit more complicated than that. People in England began using the name ‘Holland’ because there was a clearly defined geographical entity, the ‘county of Holland’. Just as they used the name ‘Flanders’ for the ‘county of Flanders’ a bit further along the coast. If they were especially well-informed, they called the bit in between ‘Brabant’. But the name ‘Netherlands’ also began to be used in English as a general term for the lands across the sea to the east of southern England. In other words, the ‘Netherlands’ was usually thought to include all these places, plus other places as well. This was why, following the Dutch revolt in the sixteenth century, the southern parts could called in English (as a more formal alternative to ‘Flanders’), ‘the Spanish Netherlands’ and later ‘the Austrian Netherlands’. On the rare occasions when anyone in England wanted to be pedantic and make a distinction between ‘Holland’ and the larger political entity of which it had become a part, they called the latter ‘the United Provinces’. Or just called them ‘the Dutch’.
Of course, there were always many people in England who were uncertain exactly where any of these places were. ‘Holland’ and ‘Flanders’ were used as much broader terms. But even some of those who were vague about the details were probably still vaguely aware that there was a difference between them, even if they did think of both as being the ‘Netherlands’.
It’s not until after 1830, when a very different name (‘Belgium’) was given to the southern half and ‘the Kingdom of the Netherlands’ became the official name for the northen half only, that the idea took root in English that ‘the Netherlands’ was only the northern bit.
[QUOTE=buddy431]
The football team has traditionally been referred to as “Holland”, and continue to be referred to as such, even as “The Netherlands” has become more common in English.
[/QUOTE]
The British parallel to that is the ‘England’ cricket team, which includes Wales and which used to include Scotland. Not that many people in Wales or Scotland play cricket.
Cite that this is true? I’ve never encountered someone from the Netherlands who objected to being called Dutch. And there really isn’t another common adjective in English.
This is pretty inaccurate. Holland is not a historical region, it covers two current provinces (North and South Holland). While there is no imperialist connotation, exactly, Holland used to be and still is the rich, developed, educated area of the country. It is rare to hear this complaint now, but it is still considered wrong/offensive to call someone a Hollander who isn’t one. I have friends who are Zeeuws, Fries and Limburger who would absolutely object to being called Hollander in any context other than distinguishing us as a nation from other nations (eg during football).
The reason it is used also as a term of pride to describe the whole country is an odd quirk of culture. I think of it as sort of related to othering: describing your tribe in relation to the other. The other describes you as “Holland”, so that is what sets you apart. Within the Netherlands you can’t just go around calling everyone a Hollander. It’s only in relation to the outside that we’ll all rally around that term.
I am a (South) Hollander and a “Nederlander”, or Dutch. (I’m also English and British, just to further confuse matters. And European. :D)
Well… it’s an odd word I suppose, but there is no real objection to it. It’s not offensive or anything like that. It’s not really normally associated very much with Germany, although it’s common knowledge that the word came from confusion. And the confusion… now that is offensive!*
*JK Germans, we love you guys! 
Speaking as a Hollander: Bullshit.
Indeed. The only people I’ve ever heard of that managed to get confused were those in Pennsylvania.
Brings to mind, Her name was “MaGill”, and she called herself “Lil”, but everyone knew her* as “Nancy”.*
So it’s like Yankee for Americans, then?
Confusion? I don’t think the word “Dutch” is the result of confusion with “Deutsch.” My understanding is that English “Dutch” and German “Deutsch” are cognates derived from a word meaning “people.” It’s not because English speakers confused the people of the Netherlands with the people of Germany.
“Pennsylvania Dutch” is a different case. My understanding is that it did derive from “Pennsylvania Deutsch.”
Here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say about the origin:
Here’s what Wiki says;
That’s generally assumed, but in the US German immigrants and people of German descent (rather than from the Netherlands) are commonly referred to as “Dutchmen” or nicknamed “Dutch.” Examples include gangster “Dutch” Schultz and baseball player Honus Wagner, known as “The Flying Dutchman,”
Oh, let’s not get giddy…how many Hollanders do you know who remember World War II?
One of the is incorrect. It’s the UKoGB&NI.
Can you pronounce that?
I think you’re illustrating my point. The English imagine that it’s important to non English in the UK to scrupulously use the term UK and avoid ‘England’ where ever the suggestion might arise that the UK is basically England. But IME, knowing many from the non-England parts of the UK, most are not pissed off by this. Because the are practical people who realize that in fact ‘the UK’ comprises England and England’s past conquests in the British Isles (minus the part of Ireland no longer included) and England still does dominate ‘the UK’ in every way.
And as far as the Queen that’s pretty much exactly like London so you contradict yourself by saying how it’s too to mention that London is also the major city of England besides capital of the UK. By the same token Elizabeth is the Queen of England, though also head of state for the UK, and for that matter also head of state of certain Commonwealth countries. But what’s nonsense is to correct anyone for calling her Queen of England. She is.
I was watching a game with someone who doesn’t follow football at all. I was calling the team Holland, the commentators were saying Dutch and the scoreboard said Netherlands …
It was halfway through extra time before she figured it out.
I believe my experience trumps yours, and you are wrong. But this isn’t a very GQ argument, is it?