Suchergebnisse

This chapter examines the Dutch adoption debates from 1880 (when debates in the Dutch East Indies increased) to the present. What arguments were used in the press and in the First and Second Chambers to justify or criticize adoptions? What explains the continuity and discontinuity in these debates? This chapter contributes to the literature by analyzing the debates about adoptions in the Chambers and the press, looking at numerous countries of origin over a long period, including the colonial era. The chapter thus focuses more on changes in arguments for and against adoption and less on policy and practice.

Abstract
Immigrant access to space depended on the activities of local authorities, claim makers, journalists and firms. Together they shaped policies regarding immigrant housing, and more indirectly community formation. Local actors played a key role in migration governance, although they mostly did not work together. This article focusses on the Dutch town Utrecht, where housing was a major issue and immigrant housing was considered to be the worst in the Netherlands. When the number of immigrants was low, when employers arranged housing, and when the immigrants could be presented as much-needed workers, there were fewer protests. This article shows that immigrants lived where they were housed, where they could afford to, or were allowed to live, and only partly where they chose to live. Authorities attached value to the input of immigrant organisation, but most initiatives were for immigrants, rather than by immigrants.

During the 1970s, the Netherlands introduced a set of multi-cultural policies which, through government subsidies, subsidised and promoted the otherness of migrants for several decades. Other countries also embraced multiculturalism. In the Netherlands, however, this policy represented a continuation of an older tradition of pillarization. Multiculturalism was not pillarization in new clothes, however, although there was a continuity of the underlying ideas, as this article will show. This led to a great deal of enthusiasm for multiculturalism, and subsequently to great disappointment, without it ever becoming clear what exactly the aim of the policy was and how its success or failure could be measured. The central thesis of this article is that the successive development of pillarization and multiculturalism in the Netherlands has led to a reinforcement of essentialist ideas concerning migrants and their descendants, as well as a freezing of ideas on 'the' Dutch culture. This double freezing then made adaptation difficult or impossible.

During the 1970s, the Netherlands introduced a set of multi-cultural policies which, through government subsidies, subsidised and promoted the otherness of migrants for several decades. Other countries also embraced multiculturalism. In the Netherlands, however, this policy represented a continuation of an older tradition of pillarization. Multiculturalism was not pillarization in new clothes, however, although there was a continuity of the underlying ideas, as this article will show. This led to a great deal of enthusiasm for multiculturalism, and subsequently to great disappointment, without it ever becoming clear what exactly the aim of the policy was and how its success or failure could be measured. The central thesis of this article is that the successive development of pillarization and multiculturalism in the Netherlands has led to a reinforcement of essentialist ideas concerning migrants and their descendants, as well as a freezing of ideas on 'the' Dutch culture. This double freezing then made adaptation difficult or impossible. This article is part of the special issue 'The International Relevance of Dutch History'.