Hello, and welcome to my thesis defense! In the video that we have just seen, girls were performing a clog dance. Although, for a lot of people, clog dancing is associated with the Netherlands, these girls are not Dutch. Most of them are Dutch American, and they are living in or around the town of Holland in Michigan.
This brings me to the subject of my thesis. The title of my thesis, with which I hope to obtain a Masters degree in American Studies at the University of Amsterdam, is “The Invention of Ethnicity: Putting the Dutch in Dutch America.”
The video we have just seen is probably how many Americans see the Dutch. However, for everybody actually living in the Netherlands, clog dancing is probably as foreign and exotic as it is for Americans. I cannot speak for all the people present here, but I personally have yet to perform my first clog dance.

So if this is not a realistic impression of Dutch life, what is it then? The short answer is that this clog dancing is something ethnic. A metaphor of ethnicity within the American context was given by Jewish American philosopher Horace Kallen. For him, all different ethnic groups in the US were like an orchestra, with each group adding its own distinct sound to the American symphony.
If you were ethnic or not was also dependent on how outsiders regarded your group. To stay in the symphony metaphor: they should be able to distinguish your ethnic sound in the symphony. In how far this distinct sound was something real or imagined, is something I will come back to later.
Finally, ethnicity is also determined by how a group sees itself. There should be a form of "othering," (the Greek "ethnikos" means other) seeing yourself as distinct from "others" to be an ethnic group.
The Dutch American instrument of choice for this othering was religion.

Already in the 17th century, when New York was still New Amsterdam, Dutch identity in America was partially determined by the Dutch Reformed Church. Services were held in Dutch and would remain so until late in the 18th century, when "dominees" were still ordained in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, religion also evolved. One of the great religious push factors, was the "nationalization" of the Dutch Reformed Church by King William I in 1816. One of the changes that did not sit well with the more pietist Protestants was the centrality of human agency in the new preaching forms. Together with numerous other differences in opinion on church teachings led to the Seccession of 1834. Originally seen as an attack on the power of the state, these first Seceders were prosecuted. The government forbade them from gathering and holding services. Another topic of dissent was how children would be educated. In the Netherlands, schooling was supposedly public, without a strong Christian signature. For obvious reasons the Seceders preferred a Christian education in line with their pietist beliefs. For the Seceder leadership, the freedom of education in the U.S. was one of the reasons to immigrate.
So religious persecution was a big push factor in immigration, while the freedom of education was an important pull factor.

Before writing my thesis I only knew a little of Dutch history in the U.S.: Peter Stuyvesant bought Manhattan from the Indians for a few beads and the Dutch were thrown out by the British in exchange for Surinam. (And also something about Dutch almost being the official language of the colony AFTER the British takeover. It is unclear if this is myth or based in truth.)

On a side note: although the Dutch Reformed Church was the official church of New Netherlands, the colonial overlords of the West Indian Company thought it good for business if other religions could also be practiced in New Netherlands. According to some, it was the beginning of the religious pluralism of what later became New York. To others, it is proof that the Dutch have always been good at "gedogen." This pragmatism probably did help the survival of the Dutch Reformed Church after the British takeover.

The most visible exponents of the 19th century immigration wave were a few Seceder "dominees," of which Albertus van Raalte is one of the better known ones. Van Raalte would establish one of the first "kolonies" in Holland, Michigan. Although the colonies were formed by Seceders, ultimately the majority of the inhabitants of the colonies (of which Pella, Iowa was another important center) was not a Seceder, but regular Dutch Reformed. By the way, the fact that Dutch immigrants formed colonies in the United States, which already was an established country, says a lot about the Dutch and their intentions. They came to establish their own little plots of the Netherlands in the US, with their own church, schools, and other Dutch organizations. Another mark of the "othering" that I spoke of earlier.

Holland, Michigan and other Dutch colonies like Pella, Iowa, were the final destination of many of the Dutch immigrants in the 1840s. Founded by Van Raalte and originally built around the Reformed Church that was established there.
In Michigan and Iowa towns like Zeeland, Overisel, and Vrisland said a lot about the origins of the immigrants that settled there.
However, not all Dutch immigrants went to live in the colonies.

I found that 2 distinct groups "broke the mold" of Dutch immigration patterns.
The first group consisted of people from Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, the bottom part of the province of Zeeland. The other group came from the Achterhoek part of Gelderland.

What these 2 parts have in common, and what separated them from other Dutch regions, is their religious plurality. In both areas, Dutch Reformed, Catholics, and Seceders lived side by side. This probably made these “Zeeuws-Vlamingen” and “Achterhoekers” less dogmatic in their views and more pragmatic. This could also prevent them from moving to areas where there is a strong orthodoxy, like the colonies. This pragmatism also made them more inclined to assimilate more with the Americans surrounding them, making them less visible then their Midwestern brethren, who therefore dominated the perceptions Americans had of the Dutch.

Of course, it is easier said than done, or in this case proven, that the Dutch immigrants who lived outside of the Midwestern colonies were less visible. One way to establish how a group influences their surroundings is to look at cultural production. I could probably lecture another hour about what cultural production exactly is, but I will spare you for now! The main point is that cultural production creates a sense of collective identity. Furthermore, cultural production is divided in small scale and large-scale cultural production.
Small-scale production is for a small group of insiders, something that modern day hipsters would probably appreciate. However, when we think of small-scale cultural production in the setting of my thesis, you can think of things like Dutch language church services or Dutch newspapers. Especially Dutch language sermons were for the true believers and not meant for outside consumption. It does, however, create a shared identity. Also important is that it is created from inside the group.
Large-scale cultural production, on the other hand, is for “the masses.” Since “the masses” usually are outside of the small ethnic group, most large scale cultural production started out as production outside of the Dutch-American community.

Washington Irving, Mary Mapes Dodge in the field of fiction. John Lothrop Motley and William Ellis Griffis in the field of history, wrote about the Dutch and their American descendants. This led to a period called Holland Mania in the late 19th century, a period during which everything Dutch was the pinnacle of civilization in the U.S. Dutch masters, like Rembrandt en Vermeer were in high demand. Also, interestingly, Dutch kitchens and even Dutch architecture came in vogue, in part because of the Dutch reputation for order and cleanliness.

Large-scale cultural production by Dutch-Americans happened almost by accident. In 1928, Holland, the one in Michigan, decided it could do with some beautification. At the suggestion of a school teacher, the city council decided to plant thousands of tulips for just this effect. Holland turned so colorful that the town drew tourists from all over Michigan. Tourism increased so much, that the council, together with the local chamber of commerce, decided to make it an annual tulip festival.
At the same time, at the suggestion of an Irish American chamber of commerce employee, the festival was Dutchified. Townspeople started dressing up in “authentic” Dutch costumes, sweeping the streets was introduced, as were windmills and wooden shoes. This drew even more tourists to Holland. The Hollanders of Michigan had struck gold: an idealized version of Dutch ethnicity could be sold to their American neighbors. Maybe we can say that the “typical Dutch” entrepreneurial spirit trumped a more authentic ethnic representation.

Another example of something that we equate with a strong ethnic identity, are the kilts and tartans of Scotland. What if I told you that before the late 18th century most Scots saw these "traditional" outfits as belonging to backward Irishmen? Only after the union with England to form Great Britain, kilts and tartans became something with which the Scots actively identified. With Tulip Time, and festivals like it in Pella in Iowa, Albany and Clymer in New York, a Dutch American tradition was invented. Much like the use of tartans and kilts is an invented Scottish tradition, that later became confused with actual Scottish history. The same goes for the Dutch pageantry exhibited at tulip festivals.

Dutch American relations go back to the 1620s. Almost 2 years ago a new link was forged in this long chain. My beautiful bride Carlyn, without whose help I could not have undertaken this project, recently became Dutch American officially. And like the Dutch Americans before is, I am sure that we will also invent our traditions. I am looking forward to add our distinct tone to the American symphony.