I get the same thing in Ireland. I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve been told to my face that I’m not an immigrant (by people on both sides of the immigration debate). I always feel like saying tell it to the Department of Justice…
And another vote for “he’s an ass”.
The Union Flag is only called the “Jack” when flown from the jackstaff on board ship.
I think
I have myself confused many Dutch guys with this, so I’ll have a go. This may land us in the pit, gauging by similar conversations in the past, but there you are.
There is this thing that goes on regarding immigration in Europe at this time that is really not the same as what goes on in America. The native Dutch mostly do not regard the immigrant Dutch as really Dutch, unless they immigrated from former colonies in which case they magically are regarded as really Dutch for reasons not clear to me.
The Dutch have an interesting division for its population: you are allochtoon or autoochtoon. An allochtoon is anybody for whom at least one parent was born outside of Holland or who was themselves born outside of Holland. An autoochtoon is everybody else. Geert Wilders, self declared protector of Dutch culture, is allochtoon by this definition and so would his children be if he had any. So is the Queen and the Crown Prince and the little princesses. Also, former Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers. But when you ask Dutch guys who the most powerful/best known allochtoon in Holland is, they do not name any of these people. They generally name the mayor of Rotterdam or Ali B., a rapper.
So, what people mean with these words is not the same as their legal definition. Here is what a school textbook has to say on the matter:
*An autochtoon is an inhabitant of our country who has roots here. His family has lived in the Netherlands for generations.
An allochtoon is somebody who differs on grounds of race or other clearly visible marks from the original inhabitants of our country. We do not call Belgians or Germans allochtoon. Children of Turkish guestworkers, who were born here, speak Dutch (of a regional dialect) perfectly (and maybe no longer speak Turkish), and who have Dutch citizenship do, however, belong to the allochtonen. After some generations they will probably not be different any more from autochtonen children. They will have the same habits and perhaps no longer remember that their grandfather came from Turkey. They will then be considered as autochtonen…*
It is very like what I was told the Greeks used as a definition of barbarian: someone not from here.
For contemporary Americans, the thing is that none of us is really “from here”, other than the folks we took it from. The place from which we say our families immigrated reveals a fair bit about who we are liktely to be and what we are likely to value. It may even reveal where we are from, if the person to whom we are speaking had a halfway decent education in history. But what we say reveals less about percentages of genetic descent and more about our choices in terms of whom/what we identify with – by two generations from immigration there is likely to be enough intermarrying that there is a choice to be made. Legal immigrants are regarded in a positive way and what they brought to our shores is considered to be an addition to the character and culture of the nation and not a detraction from it. In contrast with two generations ago when my own grandparents immigrated, the objective is not to integrate by removing one’s cultural values and habits and history.
My sense is that this is closer to the general view in the UK than to the general attitude on the Continent. Our legal structures, social structures, view of gender and class and so on are primarily derived from the Uk and not from the Continent – though this with qualification, as much of the reason of the differing laws from state to state in the US has to do with the nation from which the original settlers of that place came – so our world view is broadly more similar to theirs than to the French or the Dutch or the Danes. But the fact remains that contemporary Americans do not (any more) have this notion of a central identifiable culture which must be protected from the immigrant interloper and with which he must comply. Well, except for some southerners, who want to protect their “way of life” from other Americans also.
Americans often have issues with the language vis a vis immigrants, particularly from our southern borders, which get very hot as in the end we have no official language. But in the end even these guys identify the nation as a nation of immigrants. Holland has long and long in fact been a nation of immigrants – but they do not identify it as such. They think of it as a nation of Dutch which allows other people to come here.
I think the difference is that there are welcome and unwelcome immigrants, kind of like Americans like it when English people immigrate but kind of have that “there goes the neighbourhood” when Mexicans do. But then again, not all of them think that way.
Re: Marienee, I think this is really interesting and I hope it doesn’t go into the pit. That’s fascinating about Dutch culture. One of my friends was born and raised in Switzerland but because her parents are both British she’s not really seen as Swiss – paradoxically English people see her as English because she speaks in the same accent and her parents were born here.
In my experience, anti-immigration people tend to fixate on Africans primarily. They’re not anti-foreigner, just anti-black people :(.
I’ve heard plenty of them ranting about the Poles and Lithuanians… not to mention the Roma. But yeah, the Africans do get the worst of it.
Wrong 
The guy in the OP was just being weird. The guy who wrote the article you linked to was the arsehole.
Charming taxi driver in Dublin once: “The problem with the Romanians is that they’re ruining things for the blacks.”
I think there’s a line missing there. After “The Morning Star… another country” there should be “The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run the way it used to be run” - which puts the following line about the Daily Telegraph into a different (and more stereotypically correct) context.
And you can be “as English as roast beef” without quibbling over whether it was a Roman import - since there were no English when the Romans came over, it’s all one. (I doubt the authenticity of that claim almost as much as the one about St George; the Romans weren’t great ones for eating what we’d call “butcher’s meat”.)
Well I did say “I think”
Anyways, where’s ya cite?
Well, that’s the script as broadcast (available to view here, along with other classic clips) and I think it held true at the time (or as true as any comedy stereotype can be expected to be). Many Torygraph readers were of the opinion that the country was being run (or at least unduly influenced) by militant marxists in the trade unions and media, controlled by Moscow.
Obviously, things have moved on since 1987, in politics and newspaper publishing, and we could probably come up with a whole new list – or, indeed, several. I doubt that the Morning Star would feature much these days, though.
I don’t have any problem at all with foreigners wearing our flag, but I do think it’s hilarious. That and the way you describe your fondness, it’s just so American!
He was being a dick, probably.
It seems more like him being a tool, but he could have been trying to kid with you. A few of the Americans I’ve met just don’t seem to get the ‘teasing’ nature of UK (especially workplace) humour. They either get offended or just don’t plain understand.
Seconded. Non-loons couldn’t give a shit about the flag.
This guy sounds like an ass.
Most people here couldn’t give a hoot about the flag.
You met a racist taxi driver in Dublin? What’s the likelihood? 
Ah, but he wasn’t racist, was he? It was about the most colourblind bigotry I’ve ever heard - coming to a conclusion that is wholly illogical outside the confines of all but the most rampant xenophobia. Fair play!
(Meanwhile hoping yojimbo can be persuaded to tell his racist taxi driver story.)
Fair enough, on all counts - it must have suffered a spot of memetic drift by the time I heard it.
A newer player on the block is the Daily Star, which manages to be even more down-market than the Sun - last I saw, the Star’s self-designated selling point was that it was the “official” Big Brother paper, heavens preserve us. :smack:
As a Norwegian living in Scotland, I find it amusing (although slightly puzzling) to see the Norwegian flag used as a brand logo by several international clothing companies. The only offence caused was by a German brand that had Neo-Nazi connections, a particularly sensitive issue for a country with a history of Nazi occupation.
I have no issues with people wearing “my” flag because they feel they have some sort of connection with my country, or because they think it looks good. I’ve never known a Brit to be touchy about it either, but wearing the Union flag in Scotland (and presumably Ireland and Wales) would be taken as a political statement.
Sounds like your colleague has some anger issues, and it seems strange that he would assume you were British based on your shirt.
Funnily enough the Saltire is flown in Northern Ireland for political reasons. It’s a confusing world out there.