Of course, I would say, even though one is, like us, fully adapted after decades, integrated (but not assimilated, having to give up her/his own cultural background/luggage).
We have grown up under other circumstances, and have taken our cultural luggage, these are not supposed to be denied (what some do “to hear about it”, in my opinion this is an expression of the lack of self-esteem, confidence, this Only leads to internal conflicts), but living in the Netherlands is no longer as normal that one does not insist on her/his own cultural values to the people of the new homeland, this is certainly wrong.Unfortunately, there are still people with a migration background who find this.
If you go far enough back, then the Dutch are only people who have just come to live there.
I find the difference between autochthonous and allochtoon, or between nationalized and ethnic Dutchman, artificially.
Boundaries are artificial.
We are 1 breed, 1 people.We could be so much more if we were to stop considering people as “non-US”.
Ethnicity is a cultural identity.The Dutch are not a genetically homogeneous group and are descended from centuries of blending, so yes, they can become ethnic Dutch.I am a Dutchman, even abroad, a Dutchman of Nepalese descent.
Sure.The difference may be: the passport.
There are many ethnic Dutch people with (only sometimes) an American passport, or an English, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Surinamese, Indonesian, German, Belgian, French etc.Passport. They exist in all the countries around the world, I think, those ethnic Dutch who are or are not officially Dutchman anymore.
And there are also many Dutchmen who have a Dutch passport for several generations, but ethnically have a descent from far away.Especially the countries mentioned, but certainly also many others. But this is a very vague area. In my genalogy an Englishman comes to Zeeland in 1690. There is also a French officer to be found around 1800. Am I not an ethnic Dutchman now?
Not that it makes me a thing.A NL passport makes me a Dutchman.
The difference between autochthonous and Allochtoon is a matter of time.
If I go back in my family tree far enough, it will be fixed that it has been allochtone at any time.
Through my mother’s side of the family I seem to be family of Grutte Pier, Frisian dairy farmers, gentleman peasants, dairy farmers and on my fathers side all Frieze farmers, horse breeders, gentleman farmers and landadel, so you would say deep Fries.And AI so I have a common ancestors in common both with a VVD’er and former finance minister and with a comedian and VPRO presenter.
In my mother’s side of the family there is also some Drents blood in the family to sit and some further back presumably some German blood, probably lower Landadel.
And I have ever wondered where that dark hair is in my fathers side of the family?Bit odd between all those asblond Frisians.
And well if we really but far enough go back in time.Those Germanen, they are also Indo-European migrants from the Pontische steppe.
Ethnisch emphasizes the abnormal origin.But this is a Dutchman. This can also be born in the Netherlands.
Nationalised emphasizes the fact that the former foreigner (with possibly the same country of descent as the ethnic Dutchman) has passed the procedure to get a Dutch passport.
Whether it can be one the other… A nationalized Dutchman can be an ethnic Dutchman.An ethnic Dutchman can be a nationalized Dutchman.
So there’s no need to be a difference, but it depends on what you want to emphasize.
Everyone is in first place, man.Being something is a denial of something.
I personally do not see a difference that there is, of course, but in my experience that lies at the heart and character