Suchergebnisse

AbstractAfter the Second World War, Dutch authorities allowed 8,000 displaced persons (DPs) to come to the Netherlands, but only 3,904 came, and 25 per cent of them returned to camp life in Germany. This article seeks to explain why debates on the DP issue changed so rapidly within a short period of time. In earlier publications, it has been claimed that 'selling' DPs as workers helped to solve the DP issue. This strategy did not work for the Netherlands. This article analyses how the DP issue was framed by organisations, the Dutch government, civil servants, the Dutch Homeland Security Department, newspapers and employers.

This article analyses newspaper coverage, government policies and policy practices during the 1956 Hungarian refugee crisis. There were surprisingly few differences between newspapers in the coverage of this refugee migration, and few changes over time. The role of the press was largely supportive of government policies, although the press did criticise the selection of refugees. According to official government guidelines, officials should not have selected, but in practice this is what they attempted to do. The refugees who arrived in the Netherlands did not live up to the image the press, in its supportive role, had created: there were too few freedom fighters, women and children. This article shows that the press had an influence because policy makers did make adjustments. However, in practice selection was not what the media assumed it was, and the corrections were not what the media had aimed for.

"All people are equal, according to Thomas Jefferson, but all migrants are not. This volume looks at how they are distinguished in France, the United States, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark made through history between migrants and how these were justified in policies and public debates. The chapters form a triptych, addressing in three clusters the problematization of questions such as 'who is a refugee', 'who is family' and 'what is difference'. The chapters in this volume show that these are not separate issues. They intersect in ways that vary according to countries of origin and settlement, economic climate, geopolitical situation, as well as by gender, and by class, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation of the migrants."--Publisher's website

All people are equal, according to Thomas Jefferson, but all migrants are not. In this volume, twelve eminent scholars describe and analyse how in countries such as France, the United States, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark distinctions were made through history between migrants and how these were justified in policies and public debates. The chapters form a triptych, addressing in three clusters the problematisation of questions such as 'who is a refugee', 'who is family' and 'what is difference'. The chapters in this volume show that these are not separate issues. They intersect in ways that vary according to countries of origin and settlement, economic climate, geopolitical situation, as well as by gender, and by class, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation of the migrants.

This collection explores how Western countries have historically distinguished between categories of migrants' such as labor, refugee, family, and postcolonial migrants. Covering France, the United States, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, the contributors explain how concepts such as, refugee, family, and difference have been defined through policy and public debate. Tightly intertwined, these definitions are continuously changing with the economic and geopolitical climate, as well as in relation to migrants' gender, class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and countries of destination and origin.

From the traditional stereotyped viewpoint, femininity and technology clash. This negative association between women and technology is one of the features of the sex-typing of jobs. Men are seen as technically competent and creative; women are seen as incompetent, suited only to work with machines that have been made and maintained by men. Men identify themselves with technology, and technology is identified with masculinity. The relationship between technology, technological change and women's work is, however, very complex.; Through studies examining technological change and the sexual division of labour, this book traces the origins of the segregation between women's work and men's work and sheds light on the complicated relationship between work and technology. Drawing on research from a number of European countries England, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, international contributors present detailed studies on women's work spanning two centuries. The chapters deal with a variety of work environments - office work, textiles and pottery, food production, civil service and cotton and wool industries.; This work rejects the idea that women were mainly employed as unskilled labour in the industrial revolutions, asserting that skill was required from the women, but that both the historical record about women's work and the social construction of the concept of "skill" have denied this.