Putting the Netherlands in Perspective: The Identification of Alleged American and Dutch Traits in Dutch Travel Accounts of America, 1948–1971

ABSTRACT

Between 1948 and 1971 more Dutch travel books about America were published than ever. Since America in this era was the prime model that was used in search of an ever-elusive Dutch identity, these books informed deliberations on the Netherlands as much as on America. This article details the topics that travel writers addressed to identify supposed traits that distinguished Americans from Dutch people. Highlighting how these traits were constructed in the past contributes to fierce contemporary debates about national identity. It is shown that travel writers consistently depicted Americans – who were regularly essentialised – as childlike, high-spirited go-getters. They were deemed efficient, pragmatic and self-critical. Their generosity was lauded, their alleged gullibility decried. Supposed Dutch characteristics were framed in contrast to these attributes. Most travel writers were rather critical. Dutch people were made out to be not as kind, dynamic, energetic, ingenious and open-minded as Americans. Various travellers targeted a petty-bourgeois mentality or narrow-mindedness in particular. As much inspiration as America provided, the prevailing attitude was that Dutch people should be cautious when it came to adopting American ways. Moreover, they should cherish their distinctive modesty, even-temperedness and level-headedness (nuchterheid) and their knack for conviviality (gezelligheid).

KEYWORDS:

• Travel writing
• travel accounts
• travelogues
• Dutch
• America
• Americanization
• Dutch identity
• national identity

Introduction

‘Who wants to get to know America has to visit America. Sure, but who wants to get to know the Netherlands, has to visit America.’¹ In the first decades after the Second World War, the Dutch were eager to learn as much about the United States as they possibly could; it is even claimed ‘they could not wait to be Americanised’.² Consequently, many travel accounts were published. At the same time, as the aforementioned quote derived from one of them indicates, travel writing prompted the question: what constitutes the Netherlands and Dutch people?

Recently a research project was concluded which mapped how America, conceived of as an imagined construct that took shape in the eye of the beholder, served as a model in twentieth-century Dutch public discourse.³ Since this project predominantly relied on digitized newspapers, scant attention was paid to travel accounts. Travel writing did form the backbone of Alfons Lammers’s Uncle Sam en Jan Salie, which offered an ‘impressionistic’ description of a selection of travel accounts.⁴ The American Studies scholar concluded that every writer set out to further knowledge on America, yet invariably reiterated misunderstandings and stereotypes, though he did not offer an overview of these. Crucially, he only hinted at how these depictions of America could be telling of views on the Netherlands and Dutch self-images.

This articles aims to fill this lacuna. This is of special interest for the 1950s and 1960s. In these decades the Netherlands underwent controlled or contested modernization.⁵ This process is argued to have been accompanied by the formation of a ‘new, national identity’.⁶ Though from the 1950s interest in identifying an essence of Dutch people waned, supposed specific Dutch traits and identity continued to be studied.⁷ In this process America was key, for it served as ‘the negative mirror image in the quest for a national identity through cultural self-assertion’ – a process known as Othering.⁸ What role travel writing played in this quest has not been scrutinized systematically.

This is a shortcoming, for this era – contrary to the ‘dip in popularity’ of travel writing as a genre abroad – represents the heyday of travel books on America: more than ever were published.⁹ They successfully targeted a mass audience. Numerous were reprinted various times and republished as pocket books. Moreover, they were reviewed by newspapers; some were partly published as newspaper pieces or, in De Swaan’s case, broadcast on national radio; and writers gave lectures about them throughout the country. Consequently, they had Dutch contemporaries ponder the question: what marks out Americans and, by contrast, Dutch people? After all, as travel writing theorists have compellingly argued, ‘the representation of otherness has always been a central concern of travel writing: ‘the quest for novelty, elsewhere, estrangement, otherness, other mores and uses, constitutes the bedrock of the genre’ – which, in turn, also informs ideas about the self.¹⁰

The purpose of this article, then, is to analyse how travel writers answered these questions. In so doing, it contributes to the ongoing, fierce debate over Dutch national identity. Showing how self-images are historical constructions, often created in opposition to significant Others, historicizes present-day claims regarding a true essence of Dutch people. Additionally, readers can and do use such accounts of historical self-images to structure their own identity and actions.¹¹ In other words, it is pressing to study travel writing, for it has ‘real-life consequences:’ it ‘reflects and influences the way we view the world and ourselves in relation to it.’¹²

The next section discusses the sources, method and historical context. In the Results I first provide background information about the frames of reference travellers used, their inclination to generalize and their views on Americanization. Subsequently, under the heading Characteristics, the seven topics that most travel writers engaged with to address American and Dutch traits are discussed thematically, followed by the conclusion.

Material, Method and Historical Context

In the wake of the Second World War, many Dutch travellers to the United States published their experiences in the form of a book. These were particularly popular until the early 1970s: between 1948 and 1971 twenty books, written by eighteen authors, appeared, most of which were based on trips lasting either weeks or months. These travel accounts comprise my corpus.

In regard to their occupation, the writers of these books can broadly be divided into two groups. The first is composed of journalists and writers. Wim Dussel, Louis Frequin, H. L. Leffelaar and Mathieu Smedts were journalists, E. Elias and Rudolf van Reest both journalist and writer and Bertus Aafjes was a poet, writer and reporter. Mary Pos started out as a journalist before she became a travel writer. Inez van Dullemen was a novelist and writer who moved to the United States and lived there for two years. Both Pos and Van Dullemen wrote two travel books about America.

The second group consists of academics. They usually combined a research stay with travels throughout the country. Pieter Jan Bouman, Abram de Swaan and B. Landheer were sociologists; J. W. Schulte Nordholt and A. N. J. den Hollander American Studies scholars, with a background, respectively, in history and sociology; Bernard Vlekke was a historian; Karel van ’t Veer (real name: K. L. de Bouvère) a mathematical logician; and J. A. C. Fagginger Auer a theologian and professor of philosophy who had moved to the United States. The boundary between these groups, it should be stressed, was fluid. Next to being an academic, Van’t Veer, for example, was a correspondent for De Volkskrant. The occupation of J. G. Marwiek is unknown.

After systematically extracting all statements and observations of each travel book pertaining to the objective of this article, I thematically grouped them and conducted a discourse analysis. The latter entails that discourse is conceived of as social action: language does things.¹³ Since I am particularly interested in the discursive effects of travel accounts, i.e. how the construction and reiteration of particular images of Americans and Dutch people discursively shaped (knowledge about) an alleged American and Dutch identity, it is of minor importance – and can, for that matter, not be established by means of a discourse analysis proper – to what extent views of individual travellers stemmed from their specific personal or ideological background.¹⁴ Consequently, I will not discuss this background here and will only point it out in the analysis if relevant. Of note is that most books were written in a time when Dutch society was to a great extent still pillarized. Pillarization, however, barely featured in these travel accounts, probably since they targeted a nation-wide audience. Tellingly, travellers habitually referred to ‘us’ or ‘the Dutch’, not breaking these categories down into societal segments.

Attitudes and perceptions of travellers have to be understood in their wider historical context. In my analysis I will historicize each of the concrete tropes I identity, most of which were rooted in existing ideas and stereotypes about America. In general, before the Second World War Dutch people had relatively little interest in America. In the Interwar years in particular, indifference was coupled with latent anti-Americanism which occasionally reared its head.¹⁵ As mentioned in the introduction, this changed after the Second World War. Dutch views of America and Americans were very positive until at least the early 1960s.¹⁶ Thereafter, this welcoming outlook gave way to more criticism, owing a. o. to race riots, the Vietnam War and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.¹⁷ It should be noted, however, that most travel writers paid scant, if any, attention to concrete historical events. They rather focused on supposed ‘timeless’ aspects, in particular on alleged characteristics of ‘the’ American people. Consequently, historical events do not feature prominently in the following analysis.

Results

Frames of Reference

Scholars who have looked into Dutch views of America have pointed out that intellectuals tended to contrast the latter with Europe rather than the Netherlands.¹⁸ This does not apply to travel writers in post-war decades. Only the sociologists Bouman and Landheer exclusively referred to Europe. The vast majority used Europe as well as the Netherlands as a frame of reference.

When America was contrasted to Europe, it has been argued, this ‘often was no more than a thin rhetorical veneer’: ‘Europe’ in such references often stood in for one’s own country.¹⁹ The same goes for post-war travelogues. After all, as the quote at the start of this article indicates, travel accounts held the promise that readers could increase their knowledge on the Netherlands. ‘There is no use in talking about America without a comparison with one’s own environment’, Van’t Veer explicated.²⁰ Moreover, since all writers but Fagginger Auer and Van Dullemen lived in the Netherlands, the situation ‘at home’ was only a natural baseline to compare their American experiences with. What struck Dutch travel writers as odd, then, were things deemed odd to Dutch society and Dutch people, even if Europe was evoked. Hence, both references to the Netherlands and to Europe can be used to examine Dutch self-images.

National Character and Americanization

Many travel accounts contained disclaimers stating that they comprised ‘cursory, personal experiences’.²¹ Travellers acknowledged that their one-person endeavours could only result in impressionistic sketches.²² America was a complicated organism that should not be reduced to schematic clichés and stereotypes, as much as ‘we, Dutch people, would not all want to be equated with those who do not know how to behave when abroad’.²³

Still, all travellers had no qualms about regularly making assertions about the Americans and the American mentality, nature, character, mind or spirit – in effect nullifying their modesty. Some mentioned they deduced this character from the majority of ‘regular’ Americans; most did not address how they arrived at such sweeping statements.²⁴ Whichever term was used, the underlying assertion was the same: all caveats notwithstanding, characteristics did exist that distinguished Americans from Dutch people.

These should be studied, travellers agreed, because Dutch people could learn from them, if only to be better equipped to see things at home ‘in their true perspective’.²⁵ Moreover, it was deemed imperative because, as Fagginger Auer put it, America had or was about to become a ‘central body around which others move’.²⁶ It was an economic, cultural and military powerhouse, others concurred, that ostensibly held the future of the world in its hand. This was of particular importance for the Netherlands, a Marshall Plan benefactor and close Cold War ally.

In light of this, it is interesting to note that travellers did not express fears of imminent Americanization. There was consensus, though, that the Dutch should tread lightly. Selectively adopting certain American methods and ways might be conducive. Yet this should never be done blindly; the Dutch should neither turn into Americans, nor strive to imitate them.²⁷ In Fagginger Auer’s metaphor: Like the sun, America’s ‘gravity held other planets in their orbit; however, it does not dictate what forms of life occur on those planets’.²⁸

Characteristics

Young and Restless

One recurring trope in Dutch travel writing, which goes back to at least the nineteenth century, was that America was extremely young, especially compared to Europe and the Netherlands.²⁹ American was still in its infancy, was only a duckling, a mischievous boy, an adolescent or a giant son of Europe.³⁰ It was stressed that civilization had only taken root slightly over a century ago.

Travellers found it hard to fathom what had been achieved since. Americans for example built the metropolis Salt Lake City from scratch in only fifty years.³¹ Historian Vlekke marvelled: ‘What would the Netherlands be […] if we imagine it without everything that was brought about in the nineteenth century?’³² Dutch travellers attributed American feats to specific traits. Like a typical youngster, America was exuberant, dynamic, impetuous and restless; it venerated pace and was always in a hurry and ‘going places’. Unlike the Old World and the Netherlands, some remarked, which were ‘shackled by the chains of history, tradition and convention’ and disturbed by ‘spectres of the past’.³³

Technological Prowess and Practical Ingenuity

Dutch visitors were particularly overwhelmed by the technological prowess of America, much like travellers had been before the Second World War.³⁴ It was deemed a mechanical civilization; a land of ingenuity and convenience. Americans held achieving something in high regard, they ‘worshipped their god Success’.³⁵ Not only did everyone appear to work hard all the time – harder than what observers were used to at home – and reverence working hard.³⁶ On top of that, Americans were also in constant competition with one another, for they wanted to keep up with the Joneses.³⁷ Using their energy and perseverance to great effect, they had been able to come up with a sheer endless array of products and devices that made life easier. Inventions such as the polygraph, remote control (‘light cell gun’) and air-conditioning brought the future to the present.³⁸

Americans were able to rapidly invent and improve products because they loved to explore uncharted territories and always welcomed change. In other words, Dutch observers diagnosed, they held new in higher regard than old, whereas the reverse held true for Europe and the Netherlands. The credit card was thought to be a case in point.³⁹ It allowed Americans to use new products right away and discard used ones – a thought that ostensibly terrified Dutch people.⁴⁰ Mail order businesses offered another example. Customers had products delivered at home and only paid thereafter, causing Pos to exclaim: ‘How typically American, where everything seems possible!’⁴¹

Dutch travellers claimed that this constant urge to improve everything represented an American trait, again echoing a trope which, too, already existed before the War.⁴² Americans were deemed an efficient, pragmatic people; they were do-ers rather than theoreticians and the so-called ‘utility principle’ reigned supreme. Their language, for example, was efficient, as was the layout of their cities.⁴³ Everything was constantly streamlined and optimized, serving the needs of users. Americans went about this meticulously: research, trial and error and efficiency were instrumental. Taylorism and Fordism – with its trademark assembly line and standardized production process, which paved the way for mass-production, lower prices and consumerism – imbued every layer of American society. By means of rhymes in kindergarten, one traveller illustrated, Americans already instilled their love for ‘the naked fact and simple number’ in small children.⁴⁴ Fagginger Auer summarized the practical, can-do attitude in the following three proverbs that purportedly characterized Americans: ‘Nothing is good, unless it is good for something,’ ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating’ and ‘I shall make you see it’.⁴⁵

Confronted with the rational-technological face of modernization accompanied by an allegedly specific American mentality, Dutch observers oscillated between admiration and aversion. On the one hand, they were astonished by inventions such as the refrigerator and the automatic door. Not only did these bear testament to ‘ingenuity, energy, perseverance; all conditions that enable the creation of something magnificent’.⁴⁶ More importantly, they made life more convenient and people more productive. The latter resulted in unprecedented prosperity.⁴⁷ Other countries had not achieved such welfare yet, though some travellers expected the Netherlands to follow in America’s footsteps.⁴⁸ Hence, it dawned on travellers that America showed what was in store for the Netherlands.⁴⁹ Even though incessant change and growth went at the expense of preserving old things, ‘which we in in our small part of the world pursue diligently’, ultimately Dutch people too ‘wanted to eat the American grapes.’⁵⁰

On the other hand, mechanization, automation and optimization at the same time frightened some Dutch observers. They wrote about ‘the mechanised frenzy’, noticed un unhealthy American love-affair with gadgets (‘toys for grown-ups’) and contended that in constantly automating and perfecting products, American scientists were taking steps ‘towards a Brave New World’.⁵¹ They surmised that Americans were barely or no longer human: ‘The machine governs America rather than the other way around’.⁵² Consequently, America ‘equals technical and scientific perfection, yet no human perfection’.⁵³

Dutch travellers especially took issue with the effect the relentless profusion of new products had on the environment. Americans apparently preferred a streamlined, convenient life to the preservation of nature. The omnipresent car, the ‘mechanical outer skin’ of Americans, in particular contributed to widespread pollution and smog.⁵⁴ Moreover, others scolded, many good products, including food, were wasted.⁵⁵

In conclusion, most Dutch travellers took a somewhat conservative stance vis-à-vis the technological, scientific modernization they witnessed in America and the supposed traits that brought it about. Even though its upsides had become apparent overseas, this did not mean that the Dutch should emulate it. Several objection were raised. Next to the environment paying the price, the use of streamlining everything was called into question.⁵⁶ Interiors of American homes for example lacked ‘Dutch conviviality’ (gezelligheid).⁵⁷ In general, others asserted, America lacked Dutch gezelligheid.⁵⁸ Furthermore, some put forward that efficiency was incompatible with the way Dutch people ticked. One wrote: ‘In the Netherlands we often complicate things that could be done straightforwardly, but the American says: take it easy.’⁵⁹ Fagginger Auer added: ‘Psychologically we [Dutch people] are wired differently. We are an enterprising people, yet we are cautious, too. Usually we consider the reasons why an enterprise could not succeed, before we reach the decision that something indeed is possible.’⁶⁰

Lack of Hierarchy, Manners and the Position of Women and Children

It struck Dutch travellers that America was a considerably less hierarchical, more democratic society than the Netherlands – again, much like it had their predecessors.⁶¹ Vlekke explained that in older societies ‘walk of life [stand], tradition and religious beliefs (this especially in the Netherlands) are among the binding forces’, yet in America these forces were weak.⁶² In America, another traveller illustrated, ‘the wife of a millionaire sits next to her maid at the table; together they prepare a meal in the kitchen, and afterwards they do the dishes together.’⁶³

In keeping with a less fixed societal order, manners were deemed substantially more informal. Only rarely did a writer take issue with a perceived lack of manners – which prior Dutch travellers had done – such as putting one’s feet on the table.⁶⁴ Other travellers discarded such criticism as prejudiced and stressed the benefits of a more egalitarian society.⁶⁵ Not using titles, for example, or addressing professors on a first-name basis were deemed refreshing. As one traveller put it: you need not tip your hat to still be well-mannered.⁶⁶ Dutch people though, Vlekke wrote disdainfully, had a hard time grasping the difference, for they ‘are stuck in tradition’.⁶⁷

More egalitarian relations were also visible with respect to the role of women and to the upbringing and education of children. Dutch travellers noted that most American women worked, including married women, which was highly uncommon in the Netherlands.⁶⁸ American women were emancipated and independent. Various travellers contended that women even occupied a privileged position in society.⁶⁹ The vast majority addressed this topic neutrally. The catholic journalist Louis Frequin was the only one who vehemently opposed it. He preferred the Dutch situation, in which ‘the woman is queen of the family’.⁷⁰

Partly owing to the fact that it was common for both parents to have a job, Dutch observers noticed that Americans raised their children distinctly different from what they were used to. Compared to Dutch standards, youth received an unprecedented degree of freedom.⁷¹ Many had jobs at an early age and owned a car, which boosted feelings of autonomy. Education, too, was believed to foster extravert, assertive children.⁷²

All in all, as taken aback as observers sometimes were, their evaluation of how Americans went about raising and educating children was pretty nuanced. Yes, one granted, the fact that American parents were away during the day frequently resulted in ‘a certain disruption of families’, but this was not as bad as one would assume.⁷³ Alluding to the widespread post-war fear of degeneration and lawlessness of youngsters and adolescents in the Netherlands, he continued: ‘The moral consequences of granting young people much freedom are not alarming. Neither in the Netherlands – where young people [too] move so much more freely than fifty years ago – nor in America people run wild.’⁷⁴ What is more, one observer added in 1962, American ideas regarding upbringing and education were not set in stone. Soviet accomplishments in the Space Race, alluding in particular to Yuri Gagarin’s journey to space the year prior, had Americans realize ‘that their education might not be the best in the world’.⁷⁵ At the same time, without going into details, he stressed that superior American educational methods should be adopted by Dutch schools. Based on their willingness to at least consider possible merits of American educational methods, most Dutch travellers seem to have concurred. When it came to educating and raising children, it was not a matter of favouring either Dutch or American approaches – rather they should inform one another.

Kindness, Optimism and Manifest Destiny

In keeping with the supposed child-like nature of Americans, the prevailing opinion of Dutch travellers was that they were very joyful, ‘full of the milk of human kindness’.⁷⁶ It was appreciated that were open, hospitable and always willing to help. Since almost all travellers noticed this joviality, it apparently differed from their experiences at home.⁷⁷ Some made this distinction explicit. According to Van Reest, for example, American cheerfulness was antithetical to most Dutch people, ‘who tend to be spiky and withdrawn’.⁷⁸

It was observed that Americans not only radiated gusto, but also optimism.⁷⁹ They had unwavering faith in the future. In 1971 one traveller exemplified this trait by referring to an anthology of Esquire issues that had originally appeared in the turbulent Sixties. Americans apparently stayed carefree even under duress, he argued, for the book was entitled Smiling through the Apocalypse.⁸⁰

Optimism, many Dutch travellers posited, was accompanied by patriotism. Americans were proud of what they had achieved and displayed a great interest in their own country.⁸¹ The rise of American Studies after the Second World War was deemed symptomatic: Americans proudly studied their own distinctiveness.⁸² According to some travellers, an absolute faith in the justness of fundamental American principles – capitalism, freedom and democracy were flagged – led Americans to the belief that America had a mission. With apostolic zeal they strived to disseminate American principles, standards and values; or, in short, the American way of life.⁸³

Dutch people, by contrast, were occasionally portrayed as an innately moderate and even-tempered people – consonant with the widely-held belief, already cemented before the Second World War, that these were typical Dutch traits.⁸⁴ One traveller for example wrote: ‘The Americans are more proud of their feats than we are of, for instance, the Delta Works. Americans even come to witness these, admiringly! But we, being proud? No, you wouldn’t say.’⁸⁵ Though modesty and level-headedness were usually valued, some used America as a mirror to detect their downsides. Pos, the only traveller that aired outright nationalistic views, contended that Dutch people should be more proud of their own accomplishments such as ‘having reclaimed the Zuiderzee, the wonders of the [Dutch] Indies and the respect that other countries have for us’.⁸⁶ Instead, she lamented, ‘Dutch people have mastered the art of criticising themselves’, even though ‘we possess more than almost all other people in the world, regarding all aspects life: materially, culturally and spiritually’.⁸⁷ In more prosaic words, Van ’t Veer noted that when it came to taking an interest in one’s own history, Europeans would be well-advised to take the American example to heart.⁸⁸

Even those observers that claimed that the idea of a manifest destiny resulted in American self-aggrandizing were mostly understanding because, paradoxically, these feelings were believed to originate in insecurity.⁸⁹ These travel writers echoed the diagnosis of some Dutch travellers before the First World War: At heart, people in the New World were insecure, which caused them to act overly self-confident.⁹⁰ Occasionally this insecurity boiled over, most prominently during ‘the McCarthy hysteria’.⁹¹

The idea that the American mission complex was born out of both a feeling of superiority and a feeling of inferiority seems to be mutually exclusive, and the supposed insecurity seems to flagrantly contradict the alleged optimism. This is an important note: since Dutch travellers did not, or could not, reconcile such incompatible traits, many of their accounts at times were inconsistent. Landheer, for example, repeatedly emphasized that American life was uniform, yet at one point maintained that ‘differentiation characterises the entire American world’.⁹² It is as if travel writers’ belief that America was the Land of Extremes carried over into their own accounts.

Self-criticism

The openness so characteristic of Americans was also believed to be reflected in a remarkable willingness to criticize their own society.⁹³ Americans apparently not only strived for a better future, they also wanted to right wrongs. This most prominently came to the fore with respect to the segregation and discrimination of African-Americans and the Vietnam War.

Almost all travellers that addressed the former found it difficult to reconcile Jim Crow laws and racial segregation with the aforementioned kindness. They felt confused and powerless as to the subordination and suppression of black Americans, in part because the Netherlands was ‘not familiar with a coloured race problem’.⁹⁴ Consequently, some were reluctant to speak strongly about it.⁹⁵ Others did flatly denounce segregation and discrimination, which even after the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka ruling in 1957 remained ingrained in America, especially the South. They were even compared to Nazi practices.⁹⁶

A thread running through the majority of books, even the more critical accounts, however, was that the position of African-Americans had already significantly improved compared to the recent past or was about to do so.⁹⁷ Stressing that emancipation was well under way was in line with the sympathetic attitude towards America most writers displayed.

When Dutch travellers dealt with ‘the racial question,’ they barely reflected on the Netherlands. The latter did happen when they discussed another hot-potato issue, the Vietnam War. Dutch travellers applauded American public protests against this war, for these underlined that Americans were willing to openly discuss urgent matters – unlike European or Dutch people, some stressed. Van Dullemen, who contended that America was a Janus-faced society unlike any other, offered a telling example: ‘American troops enter Cambodia and three days later journalist Seymour M. Hersch receives a Pulitzer for his report of the bloodbath of My Lai. Would it be conceivable that a report of a German journalist describing German war crimes at the Russian front was awarded a prize?’⁹⁸ De Swaan concurred that in America everything could and was being said and maintained that in ‘this regard America compares favourably to the Netherlands where an underhanded elite ignored the wretched little war in New Guinea’, referring to the Netherlands’ – eventually futile – effort to maintain its last colony in the late 1950s and early 1960s by military means.⁹⁹ In the same vein Frequin used the putative American readiness to discuss their ‘bad characteristics and excesses’ to castigate the Netherlands, where ‘we try to conceal these and blow our own horn because of all our good traits!’¹⁰⁰

The fact that Dutch observers were astounded by the openness of the public debate in America indicates that they were not used to such a debate in the Netherlands. Several travel writers explicitly berated a supposed narrow-minded Dutch mentality and the tendency to compartmentalize and label everyone (hokjes- en schotjesgeest), which readers could take as allusions to pillarization.¹⁰¹ This sentiment did not merely surface in the 1960s, a period in which – James Kennedy has compellingly argued – not only countercultural movements, but even Dutch elites criticized Dutch society as narrow-minded and petty-bourgeois.¹⁰² A decade prior, Bouman and Vlekke for example had already called up Babbitt, Sinclair Lewis’s popular satire of middle-class America. They suggested it was the Netherlands rather than America that was inhabited by Babbits, that is by small-minded, complacent and mediocre people.¹⁰³ Travelling through the Land of Opportunity, in other words, made observers realize or provided them the chance to stress that Dutch people should shed their self-complacency and inclination to see their ways as the measure of all things. Shortly after the Second World War, Vlekke for example contended that a national feeling of superiority – exhibited by ‘the epitheta ornantia brave, tough, unyielding, clear, devout and culture-loving people’ – coincided with a sense of inferiority, which resulted in ‘glorification of the distinct (het eigene) and overrating its own achievements’.¹⁰⁴ Vlekke’s views, which might have been informed by an intellectual post-war gloom, were the most critical of all travellers. Still, in the years that followed, other travellers – without explicitly negating that Dutch people were moderate and modest, like Vlekke did – concurred that Dutch people all too eagerly criticized others without acknowledging their own shortcomings.¹⁰⁵ It was not considered fair to use a Dutch, ‘Calvinistic yardstick’ to measure other people and primarily Americans.¹⁰⁶ This only resulted in idealizing ‘the land of manure and mist’, i.e. the Netherlands, and thwarted changing the Netherlands for the better.¹⁰⁷

Materialism, Idealism and Generosity

One of the most pervasive stereotypes about Americans that had been firmly in place before the Second World War, was that they were materialistic.¹⁰⁸ Interestingly, only a few travel writers in my corpus expressed this idea. ‘Americans don’t close their eyes when there is business to conduct’, one wrote.¹⁰⁹ He had spoken with a taxi driver, who worked fifteen hours a day: ‘We, orderly as Dutch people are, flared up: is that allowed?’¹¹⁰ Pos claimed that in America ‘the word business defines everything’ and ‘nothing is safe from the power of the dollar’.¹¹¹

Most travel writers, however, denounced or nuanced the cliché. Even if Americans were materialistic, people in Europe and the Netherlands were no different.¹¹² And even if were true that the United States before the Second World War had lived by the infamous words of president Coolidge, who had proclaimed that ‘America’s business is business’, this was no longer believed to be accurate thereafter.¹¹³

Many Dutch observers, to the contrary, remarked that Americans were actually very generous. They were not attached to money and easily spent it.¹¹⁴ Out of idealism and a sense of duty they gladly donated to charity.¹¹⁵ Fagginger Auer, who had collected funds to support the Netherlands during the Second World War, recorded that someone had told him: ‘I want to thank you for having given me the opportunity to be of service.’¹¹⁶ Neither he nor other travellers entertained the thought that this could have been mere politeness. Instead, they deemed generosity typically American. The Netherlands had benefited from this trait, and yet Dutch people did not or not sufficiently appreciate the American war effort and subsequent Marshall aid. Ingratitude and even suspicion as to the alleged economic-hegemonic motivation behind this aid (‘dollar diplomacy’), it was stressed, did not do justice to the very real sacrifice Americans had made and still made.¹¹⁷

Bragging and Gullibility

The vast majority of travel writers emphasized that Americans loved to exaggerate and boast. This trope, too, goes back to the nineteenth century.¹¹⁸ It was contended they readily used superlatives: to Americans bigger ostensibly equated better. They took great pride in records, which they publicized loudly, and were even willing to fib to fabricate them.¹¹⁹

In depicting Americans in this manner, numerous travellers, again, portrayed Americans as children or a childlike people. Moreover, they deemed Americans gullible.¹²⁰ Bouman for example argued that Americans were prone to collective delusion: ‘Mere hearsay often has free rein and can lead to commotion, which is practically inscrutable to Europeans. Outside America there are few examples of fright such as the one prompted by the radio broadcast […] Invasion from Mars.’¹²¹ Others added that American readily bought into superficial and sensationalist journalism offered by the yellow press, an institution unknown to the Dutch (‘if one must believe Dutch newspapers, there are no murderers and passionate lovers in the Netherlands’) that spurred and simultaneously fed off naivety.¹²²

American newspapers were not alone in fighting over the attention of consumers, advertisements did the same. Travel writers documented how advertisements defined what America looked like and what Americans were enthralled by. This, too, was a familiar trope.¹²³ Americans coupled shiny outward appearances and sex appeal with slogans. ‘Almost without risking a misunderstanding, one could exchange the slogans of the leaflets of cemeteries for those of amusement parks,’ Van Dullemen scoffed.¹²⁴ Even religion relied on marketing to win souls; the Bible was advertised as a best-seller.¹²⁵

In sum, Dutch travellers were baffled by the ubiquitous and abundant way in which Americans advertised everything. Some patronizingly shook their head and smiled: those silly, childlike Americans.¹²⁶ In so doing, they again activated the stereotype that Dutch people, by contrast, were modest and level-headed (nuchter).¹²⁷ Even though they did not express concerns about an all-pervasive, American commercialism gaining ground in the Netherlands – which had been common in the Interwar years – their account on the matter can be read as an effort to ensure that this would not happen in the future.¹²⁸ A couple of travellers for example used it to argue against having Dutch broadcasts interrupted by commercials.¹²⁹

Conclusion

Dutch views of America and Americans, which were habitually depicted as a monolithic mass, in travel books published between 1948 and 1971 hardly differed over time. In general, consonant with public opinion, writers were positive, though in the 1960s more criticism was aired. Regarding most topics the travellers engaged with, their accounts show a remarkable resemblance, irrespective of the changing face of the Netherlands and America. This finding underlines how pervasive ideas and discourses about America and Americans were. It also suggests that writers tended to echo each other.¹³⁰

More importantly, it means that ideas on what distinguished Americans from Dutch people were relative stable. Americans were cast as childlike, high-spirited, optimistic go-getters. Their purported innate efficiency and pragmatism enabled them to amass great wealth and build a truly modern, mechanized society, which both thrilled and frightened Dutch travellers. Their informal manners and the autonomy of women and children were believed to attest to their dynamic nature: Americans were constantly trying to optimize themselves and their society. Hence, they embraced the opportunity to criticize themselves. Though some travellers stressed that Americans at times felt insecure, this feeling was thought to be balanced by patriotism. Furthermore, Dutch travellers tried to correct the stereotype that Americans were materialistic. Instead they highlighted American idealism and generosity. One of the few alleged trait that was widely decried was their penchant for exaggeration, be it in stories or advertisements, and their susceptibility to overstatements. I have highlighted that most of these tropes go back to at least the nineteenth century; future research could track the exact roots. It could research, too, to what extent these ideas were prevalent in post Second World War publications other than travel accounts.

Dutch travellers were more keen on making statements about ‘the’ American mentality, mind, spirit or nature – in other words on essentialising Americans – than on pinpointing alleged Dutch traits. Still, primarily implicitly, they did identify some. Most travel writers were rather critical, Frequin, De Swaan, Bouman and Vlekke in particular. Even those who were not overly negative about alleged Dutch traits agreed that the Dutch might be hampered, if not by the past than by a petty-bourgeois mentality or pigeonholing in order to divide people along familiar lines. Their journey had them realize that Dutch people would be well-advised to take a page out of the dynamic, energetic American book. If nothing else, they certainly could be kinder. Ingenuity and keeping an open mind also seemed to be in short supply.

In conclusion, Dutch travel accounts published in the decades after the Second World War demonstrate that Dutch people were eager to ponder what could be learned from Americans. Yet by no means do travel accounts indicate that they longed to be Americanized or advocated the adoption of American ways without hesitation. Dutch people should uphold putative distinctive traits. Modesty and even-temperedness were singled out, as was conviviality (gezelligheid). In addition, the commercialization of society and gullibility of Americans were deemed antithetical to Dutch level-headedness. The prevailing attitude was that the Dutch could have their cake and eat it: be inspired by the New World while retaining their own distinctiveness. Widening the Dutch perspective by taking in America open-mindedly was to be championed, yet ‘we’ should neither strive to become nor be anxious about turning into Americans. For, as one travel writer succinctly put it: ‘As many lands, as many customs’.¹³¹

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jesper Verhoef

Jesper Verhoef is a historian and media scholar who has published on digital humanities, modernisation, individualisation, Dutch history, identity formation and media history, with a focus on popular discourses surrounding new media such as the portable radio and the Walkman.

Notes

1. Italics in original. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 249. All translations are mine.

2. Lammers, Uncle Sam, 145.

3. The project is outlined by Van Eijnatten, Pieters and Verheul, ‘Big Data’.

4. See note 2 above 182.

5. For a brief historiography of (the debate about) this concept, see Verhoef, ‘Lawaai’.

6. Schuyt and Taverne, 1950, 24. According to them, that identity entailed ‘that of highly developed, industrial nation’.

7. Van Ginkel, Op zoek naar eigenheid, 249–258; Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon, 62–73.

8. Kroes, ‘The Great Satan’, 37. See also Verhoef, Opzien, 12–15.

9. Thompson, “Travel Writing Now, 1950 to the Present Day,” 200.

10. Smethurst and Kuehn, New Directions in Travel Writing Studies, 10; Quaireau and Ounoughi, “Exceptions and Exceptionality in Travel Writing,” 203. Cf. Heijns, “The Image of Hong Kong in Dutch Travel Writing.”

11. Frijhoff, “Identiteit en identiteitsbesef”, 623–25; Te Velde, “De missing link van de nationale identiteit,” 34. Verhoef, Opzien, 171–172.

12. Thompson, “Travel Writing Now, 1950 to the Present Day,” 200; Youngs, The Cambridge Introduction to Travel Writing, 12.

13. Gill, “Discourse Analysis”, 175.

14. Ibidem, 174–175.

15. Verhoef, Opzien, 28.

16. Kroes, “The Great Satan”, 41. See also Roholl, “Uncle Sam”, 147–52; Kennedy, “Cultural Developments”, 931–940.

17. Kroes, “The Great Satan”, 42–45; Lammers, Uncle Sam, 168–172.

18. Van Berkel, Amerika; Kroes, De leegte; De Vries, Complexe consensus, 248–260.

19. Kroes, De leegte, 104.

20. Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 6.

21. Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 73.

22. Elias, Paradijs, 7; Dussel, De wereld, 280; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 6; Marwiek, 200 miljoen Amerikanen, 44–45; Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 8–9; De Swaan, Amerika, 9; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 20; Den Hollander, Americana, 8.

23. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 45.

24. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 12; Den Hollander, Americana, 201.

25. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 340.

26. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 147.

27. For example by Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 340–41; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 7–8; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 118 and 137; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 180.

28. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 147.

29. Kroes, Land van leegte, 26–27; Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch travellers”, 652.

30. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 44; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 10; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 81; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 175–76; Van Dullemen, Logeren, 8.

31. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 46. Cf. Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 40.

32. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 307.

33. Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 72–73; Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 26.

34. For example Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch travellers”, 650; Lammers, Uncle Sam, 106.

35. Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 184. See also Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 402; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 139; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 193–194.

36. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 304–5; Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 22, 69, 170, 270 and 307; Pos, Californië, 25, 27 and 94; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 8; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 139; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 192; De Swaan, Amerika, 106; Den Hollander, Americana, 264; Van Dullemen, Logeren, 61.

37. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 58; Pos, Californië, 94; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 9; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 140; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 171.

38. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 90.

39. Elias, Paradijs, 132; Bouman, Volk in beweging, 54; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 113; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 43 and 66.

40. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 87.

41. Pos, Californië, 141.

42. For example Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travellers”, 652.

43. Regarding language, see Elias, Paradijs, 226; Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 149; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 60–61. Regarding city lay-outs, see Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 20; Dussel, De wereld, 315.

44. Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 145.

45. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 16, 22 and 67.

46. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 28.

47. Elias, Paradijs, 8; Pos, Californië, 29; Dussel, De wereld, 314; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 66; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 110.

48. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 117; De Swaan, Amerika, 174.

49. This belief, too, was shared by their predecessors. Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travellers”, 641.

50. Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 127; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 6.

51. Elias, Paradijs, 95; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 83; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 149.

52. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 28.

53. Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 199.

54. Cf. Elias, Paradijs, 25; Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 322; De Swaan, Amerika, 11 and 57.

55. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 86; Pos, Californië, 31.

56. Elias, Paradijs, 225.

57. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 116. See also Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 248–49.

58. Elias, Paradijs, 35 and 47; Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 254–55; Dussel, De wereld, 317; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 79; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 112. Cf. Pos, Californië, 56.

59. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 137.

60. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 85–86.

61. Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travellers”, 646.

62. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 309.

63. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 33.

64. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 32. Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travellers”, 646.

65. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 119; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 60–61; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 75 and 207.

66. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 30.

67. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 308.

68. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 23–24; Pos, Californië, 29; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 46; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 104.

69. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 302–3; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 84; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 104. See also Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 43; Den Hollander, Americana, 247.

70. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 45–46.

71. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 301; Pos, Californië, 29; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 48–52; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 76–79; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 173; Den Hollander, Americana, 245–46.

72. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 208. See also Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 42–49; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 104–137; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 108–9; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 76.

73. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 79.

74. Fagginger Auer, 79.

75. Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 119.

76. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 110.

77. At least one travel account published before the First World War contained a similar remark. Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch travellers”, 255.

78. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 232.

79. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 62; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 175–76; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 15–16, 22, 65–67, 85–86 and 156; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 113; Den Hollander, Americana, 261.

80. Smedts, De grote kater, 179.

81. Elias, Paradijs, 131 and 233; Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 312; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 19–20; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 159; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 175–76; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 31–32.

82. Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 187.

83. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 247–48; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 19–20; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 174; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 10, 12, 17 and 53; Den Hollander, Americana, 293.

84. For example Elias, Paradijs, 8; Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 68; Van Dullemen, Logeren, 21–24. See also Heerikhuizen, “Sociologen in de jaren dertig en veertig over het Nederlandse volkskarakter”, 650; Van Ginkel, “Typisch Nederlands … “, 51–52; Verhoef, Opzien, 60.

85. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 31–32.

86. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 191.

87. Pos, 398.

88. See note 75 above 159.

89. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 107; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 111–12; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 188; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 16.

90. Schulte Nordholte, “Dutch travellers”, 649.

91. Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 185. See also Frequin, Ik huil niet, 179; Bouman, Volk in beweging, 107; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 62.

92. Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 103.

93. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 313; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 7; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 65; Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 174; Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 78 and 119. Landheer contradicted this assertion. Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 10, 202 and 211.

94. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 86. Cf. Roberson, “North America”.

95. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 32; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 170. Cf. Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 130–32.

96. Leffelaar, Het kaartenhuis in Dixie, 12–23; Frequin, Ik huil niet om Amerika, 58. Aafjes called this comparison “felonious”. Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 134.

97. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 33; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 201; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 163–164 and 172–173; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 104; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 132; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 65 and 177; Den Hollander, Americana, 147; Van Dullemen, Logeren, 72–79; Smedts, De grote kater, 177.

98. Van Dullemen, Logeren, 32.

99. De Swaan, Amerika, 26.

100. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 98.

101. Dussel, De wereld, 9; De Swaan, Amerika, 95 and 97; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 110.

102. Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon, 121.

103. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 21; Bouman, Volk in beweging, 101.

104. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 321 and 17.

105. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 28; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 10.

106. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 26; Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 81.

107. Frequin, Ik huil niet, 7.

108. For example Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travelers”, 646; Verhoef, Opzien, 60; Kroes, Land van leegte, 27.

109. Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 80.

110. Marwiek, 80.

111. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 70 and 117.

112. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 125; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 25; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 80.

113. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 125; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 141; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 8.

114. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 148 and 252; Pos, Californië, 31 and 112; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 115; Landheer, De Verenigde Staten, 40.

115. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 133; Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 375–76, 386, 395 and 397; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 12; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 80; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 115.

116. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 81.

117. Vlekke, Amerika en wij, 291. See also Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 349; Bouman, Volk in beweging, 116; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 12; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 119; De Swaan, Amerika, 10.

118. For example Lammers, Uncle Sam, 61; Schulte Nordholt, “Dutch Travellers”, 649.

119. Elias, Paradijs, 21; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 51–52; Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 68; Marwiek, 200 Miljoen Amerikanen, 149 and 165.

120. For example Pos, Californië, 99.

121. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 107. See also Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 382.

122. Aafjes, Ik ga naar Amerika, 186. See also Elias, Paradijs, 120 and 244; Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 141; Bouman, Volk in beweging, 105; Frequin, Ik huil niet, 7, 112, 115 and 119; Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 89–90.

123. Schreurs, Geschiedenis van de reclame, 82–83. Verhoef, Opzien, 42–54.

124. Van Dullemen, Op zoek, 90.

125. Bouman, Volk in beweging, 109; Pos, Californië, 145–50; Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 150.

126. Elias, Paradijs, 74; Van Dussel, De wereld, 279; Van “t Veer, Op houten schoenen, 183 and 193–194; De Swaan, Amerika, 109.

127. Cf. Elias, Paradijs, 8; Van Dullemen, Logeren, 24.

128. Verhoef, “Anti-modern national identity formation.” Cf. Verhoef, Opzien, 28–61.

129. Van Reest, Van kust tot kust, 67; Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 32; Schulte Nordholt, Amerika, 144; Marwiek, 200 miljoen Amerikanen, 81.

130. Occasionally this was explicitly acknowledged. Fagginger Auer for example credited Vlekke. Fagginger Auer, Amerika, 35.

131. Pos, Ik zag Amerika, 254. This is a rough translation of the expression ““s lands wijs, “s lands eer”.