'@Karen'
"I don't get how what you're seeing is "in the articles". It states:"
In the article it cites some historic examples of people using the term "Yankee" in the same way I was talking about it's modern usage. As being specific to New Englanders. Change over time if anything is how that term has widened depending on who is using it as I detailed. You said I was only using the word in a modern sense, but that's not the case.
"Most linguists look to Dutch sources, noting the extensive interaction between the colonial Dutch in New Netherland (now largely New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and western Connecticut) and the colonial English in New England (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut)."
Yeah, I said as much. Even Long Island was divided in two by Dutch and Puritans. Whatever I may doubt about the theory, the plausibility of Dutch being the root of "Yankee" is pretty darn high. Precisely because of that proximity of New England and New Netherland.
"The word Yankee is a variation that could have referred to the Dutch Americans. However, as Americans of Dutch descent rejected the term as being derogatory, Americans in New England embraced it and adopted it for themselves."
I just find it kind of off that it would leapfrog like that. I'm reading around more sources and finding theories similar to that, but they imply that the Dutch had been called it as a slur by other Europeans near them, so it became a nasty word to use on people, and that the Dutch then started using it on the New Englanders to their northeast (who likely didn't have the foggiest idea what it meant) and eventually it stuck as a nickname probably beyond the point of anyone recalling a slut. That I can buy.
The idea of Dutch rejecting it from others, and New Englanders picking it up though...it sounds awkward. It needs that passage in the middle, which the Dutch using it as to insult the New Englanders more or less covers.
"used as a nickname for a Dutch-speaking American in colonial times" and could have grown to include non-Dutch colonists as well"
This is what I'm finding weird. Who is the group using it in this situation? Calling the Dutch it, then deciding to also aim at New Englanders? The British? More southerly English colonists like in Philly? I have a hard time believing any of these groups would not be differentiating between Dutch and English people on any grounds.
"There is also the Dutch jonkheer, a term applied to the younger sons of the nobility who bear no title themselves. It may be translated as "young gentleman" or "esquire" and is the source of the toponym Yonkers; an etymologically equivalent term in German is Junker."
But why would that one stick to New England? That would make a lot of sense if it had directed at early Southerners, as practically the whole Southern upper class was made up of exactly younger sons of nobility. New Englanders though were nothing of the sort, no nobility or any of that. Mostly descendents of anti-Anglican religious people (Puritans).
"As for New England, that too used to have a different meaning"
The Dominion was a period where the British tried putting their foot down and strictly controlling the region, this was in the years after the restoration and there was already bad blood between the New Englanders and the Stuarts so it was really tense. As soon as the Stuarts got crippled by the Glorious Revolution, New Englanders tore the Dominion down, and it collapsed across the board pretty quickly.
"In fact, the Pennamite–Yankee Wars in the late 1700s were a series of border skirmishes between "Pennamites" (Pennsylvanians) and "Yankees" over the Susquehanna River."
Wait are you saying that New England used to cover the wider Northeast US? Uh...no. It has always been centered around the colonies near Boston and where the people from them spread.
Earliest recording of the name was from before the colonies even settled up there from Virginian explorers: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/john-smith-coined-the-term-new-england-on-this-1616-map-180953383/?no-ist
That map if you can't tell is the coast from Cape Cod up to (coincidentally) pretty much what is now the Canadian border. That reference stuck with the actual colonies that eventually settled there, which were a highly specific sort with a focused and unique quality. The Puritan groups. "New England" followed where they went and laid down the main roots, which would include stuff roughly up to the Hudson river like it is now. New England became cultural code for areas where the culture of the Puritans was the foundation, or their close offshoots anyway like the cool dude who founded Rhode Island.
You cite the Pennamite-Yankee wars...but yeah the "Yankees" in question were people from Connecticut trying to make land claims further west based entirely on just that, claims. These claims even went as far west as Ohio where parts of Northeast Ohio have traces of that. But none of that became New England at any point (outside the British calling a huge area Dominion of New England). New England has always been a byword for the heavy Puritan influenced zones. The outcome of that war for example was decided in favor of the Pennsylvanians, maybe if it hadn't then the area around modern Scranton (where the US Office takes place lol) would be New England. But welp, nope.
"The Dutch before them had considered it their border as well."
You say this like the Dutch were intermingled and contiguous with New Englanders, but big nope on that one. That would firstly require the New England Puritans to be not xenophobic assholes who were only comfortable with people of their exact brand of Protestant. Just in general though this assumption really requires not getting how New England and New Englanders at the time were a very specific cultural thing, rather than just some geographic term. A specific thing that was definitely completely separate from the Dutch merchants in New Amsterdam. And even later from the more diverse New York that emerged after the English takeover.
If you're thinking New England as distinct is more modern, no, it's the complete other way around. The New York area and New England have become heavily intertwined and very easily categorized together, except in regards to older things. Things that separate the regions are just that, more historical than modern.
"Don't forget that "New Netherlands" wasn't just New York - it extended from PA to MA., with settlements mainly in NY, NJ, DE and CT."
It kind of was just NYC though...I mean in regards to actual settlement. NYC, the Hudson valley, and some of north New Jersey. The territory otherwise was sparsely if AT ALL populated by Europeans, and would have mostly had forts if even that. Maps showing larger areas are mostly showing claims rather than some suggestion of lots of Dutch people throughout that area.
As evidence you can really tell still where Dutch influence was heavier, because (like Yonkers as you mentioned) you have areas with still lots of Dutch names as origin points. NYC itself is littered with forgotten Dutch references from Harlem, and this extends upward into the Hudson valley. But it doesn't extend eastward into western Connecticut, the Dutch influence here was claims and a couple forts. Not actually settlement. Everything around here was Puritan settled, there's no question of western Connecticut as having pretty purely Puritan historical roots.....however New Amsterdam has gotten revenge and currently holds massive influence on western CT to the point of most of us being more New York than Boston oriented lol...but that's modern!
The closest Dutch toponym around I can even think of is the town of Orange CT....but that's named in honor of William III for crushing the Stuart dynasty and helping end the Dominion we were talking about earlier!
0
'@Karen'
"I don't get how what you're seeing is "in the articles". It states:"
In the article it cites some historic examples of people using the term "Yankee" in the same way I was talking about it's modern usage. As being specific to New Englanders. Change over time if anything is how that term has widened depending on who is using it as I detailed. You said I was only using the word in a modern sense, but that's not the case.
"Most linguists look to Dutch sources, noting the extensive interaction between the colonial Dutch in New Netherland (now largely New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and western Connecticut) and the colonial English in New England (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut)."
Yeah, I said as much. Even Long Island was divided in two by Dutch and Puritans. Whatever I may doubt about the theory, the plausibility of Dutch being the root of "Yankee" is pretty darn high. Precisely because of that proximity of New England and New Netherland.
"The word Yankee is a variation that could have referred to the Dutch Americans. However, as Americans of Dutch descent rejected the term as being derogatory, Americans in New England embraced it and adopted it for themselves."
I just find it kind of off that it would leapfrog like that. I'm reading around more sources and finding theories similar to that, but they imply that the Dutch had been called it as a slur by other Europeans near them, so it became a nasty word to use on people, and that the Dutch then started using it on the New Englanders to their northeast (who likely didn't have the foggiest idea what it meant) and eventually it stuck as a nickname probably beyond the point of anyone recalling a slut. That I can buy.
The idea of Dutch rejecting it from others, and New Englanders picking it up though...it sounds awkward. It needs that passage in the middle, which the Dutch using it as to insult the New Englanders more or less covers.
"used as a nickname for a Dutch-speaking American in colonial times" and could have grown to include non-Dutch colonists as well"
This is what I'm finding weird. Who is the group using it in this situation? Calling the Dutch it, then deciding to also aim at New Englanders? The British? More southerly English colonists like in Philly? I have a hard time believing any of these groups would not be differentiating between Dutch and English people on any grounds.
"There is also the Dutch jonkheer, a term applied to the younger sons of the nobility who bear no title themselves. It may be translated as "young gentleman" or "esquire" and is the source of the toponym Yonkers; an etymologically equivalent term in German is Junker."
But why would that one stick to New England? That would make a lot of sense if it had directed at early Southerners, as practically the whole Southern upper class was made up of exactly younger sons of nobility. New Englanders though were nothing of the sort, no nobility or any of that. Mostly descendents of anti-Anglican religious people (Puritans).
"As for New England, that too used to have a different meaning"
The Dominion was a period where the British tried putting their foot down and strictly controlling the region, this was in the years after the restoration and there was already bad blood between the New Englanders and the Stuarts so it was really tense. As soon as the Stuarts got crippled by the Glorious Revolution, New Englanders tore the Dominion down, and it collapsed across the board pretty quickly.
"In fact, the Pennamite–Yankee Wars in the late 1700s were a series of border skirmishes between "Pennamites" (Pennsylvanians) and "Yankees" over the Susquehanna River."
Wait are you saying that New England used to cover the wider Northeast US? Uh...no. It has always been centered around the colonies near Boston and where the people from them spread.
Earliest recording of the name was from before the colonies even settled up there from Virginian explorers: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/john-smith-coined-the-term-new-england-on-this-1616-map-180953383/?no-ist
That map if you can't tell is the coast from Cape Cod up to (coincidentally) pretty much what is now the Canadian border. That reference stuck with the actual colonies that eventually settled there, which were a highly specific sort with a focused and unique quality. The Puritan groups. "New England" followed where they went and laid down the main roots, which would include stuff roughly up to the Hudson river like it is now. New England became cultural code for areas where the culture of the Puritans was the foundation, or their close offshoots anyway like the cool dude who founded Rhode Island.
You cite the Pennamite-Yankee wars...but yeah the "Yankees" in question were people from Connecticut trying to make land claims further west based entirely on just that, claims. These claims even went as far west as Ohio where parts of Northeast Ohio have traces of that. But none of that became New England at any point (outside the British calling a huge area Dominion of New England). New England has always been a byword for the heavy Puritan influenced zones. The outcome of that war for example was decided in favor of the Pennsylvanians, maybe if it hadn't then the area around modern Scranton (where the US Office takes place lol) would be New England. But welp, nope.
"The Dutch before them had considered it their border as well."
You say this like the Dutch were intermingled and contiguous with New Englanders, but big nope on that one. That would firstly require the New England Puritans to be not xenophobic assholes who were only comfortable with people of their exact brand of Protestant. Just in general though this assumption really requires not getting how New England and New Englanders at the time were a very specific cultural thing, rather than just some geographic term. A specific thing that was definitely completely separate from the Dutch merchants in New Amsterdam. And even later from the more diverse New York that emerged after the English takeover.
If you're thinking New England as distinct is more modern, no, it's the complete other way around. The New York area and New England have become heavily intertwined and very easily categorized together, except in regards to older things. Things that separate the regions are just that, more historical than modern.
"Don't forget that "New Netherlands" wasn't just New York - it extended from PA to MA., with settlements mainly in NY, NJ, DE and CT."
It kind of was just NYC though...I mean in regards to actual settlement. NYC, the Hudson valley, and some of north New Jersey. The territory otherwise was sparsely if AT ALL populated by Europeans, and would have mostly had forts if even that. Maps showing larger areas are mostly showing claims rather than some suggestion of lots of Dutch people throughout that area.
As evidence you can really tell still where Dutch influence was heavier, because (like Yonkers as you mentioned) you have areas with still lots of Dutch names as origin points. NYC itself is littered with forgotten Dutch references from Harlem, and this extends upward into the Hudson valley. But it doesn't extend eastward into western Connecticut, the Dutch influence here was claims and a couple forts. Not actually settlement. Everything around here was Puritan settled, there's no question of western Connecticut as having pretty purely Puritan historical roots.....however New Amsterdam has gotten revenge and currently holds massive influence on western CT to the point of most of us being more New York than Boston oriented lol...but that's modern!
The closest Dutch toponym around I can even think of is the town of Orange CT....but that's named in honor of William III for crushing the Stuart dynasty and helping end the Dominion we were talking about earlier!