Explore More »

The "Bosman-Bill": Legalization of Institutionalized Racism in the Netherlands

"The Dutch identity? No, I haven’t found it (...). There are too many facets to The Netherlands to catch them all in one cliché. “The” typical Dutch person does not exist. By way of comfort, I can tell you that “the” Argentinian does not exist either."


"Dutch history teaches us that the quest for national identity does not necessarily result in fascism. A fatherland-ish sentiment can also be a positive, constructive force, a vessel for the people’s sovereignty, democracy and solidarity with the weak. Furthermore, it is an extraordinary effective integration ideology for which arguably there is no superior alternative."


Public Decency

Has the Dutch constitution lost all of its value? Article 1, the article that prohibits discrimination on any grounds whatsoever and arguably the most important part of Dutch law, is under serious threat. In the summer of 2012, incumbent MP André Bosman (1965-) (VVD) introduced a by now infamous bill into Dutch parliament. The so-called “Bosman-bill” proposes more restrict integration policies concerning immigrants coming to the Netherlands from the former Dutch Antilles: Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. In the explanatory memorandum, Bosma argued that, “Because of its large affluence and its favorable welfare provisions,” the Netherlands is a popular destination for immigrants coming from the islands, especially for underprivileged youngsters. 

However, he says, once in the Netherlands, too many of these youngsters drop out of school and end up unemployed, leaving the welfare state to take care of them. Consequently, many of them take up a “criminal career.” In order to curb these “structural problems” and “discourage the constant influx of migrants” from the Caribbean, Bosman wants to “regulate” immigration coming from these three autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Yes, the former Antilles still belong to the Kingdom, but the VVD does not care: apparently, some parts of the Kingdom are more equal than others. On what grounds one might wonder.  

Arguably, one of the most contested criteria put forward in the Bosman-bill is the demand that immigrants from the former Dutch Antilles “should not pose a threat to the public order, the public peace or security, public decency or the common interest” in the Netherlands, suggesting that as a rule they do indeed. In addition, the bill (Article 14) also legally enables “civil servants,” i.e. police officers, to stop any person of color in the streets at will and to ask for their “identity, nationality and legal residential position.” Any other might call this both racial discrimination and/or legalizing ethnic or racial profiling. Yet, backed up by the argument that the former Dutch Antilles are allegedly pursuing comparable policies the other way around (which is not true, by the way), the VVD is still pushing for the bill. 

Not including the members of the political association PVV, all other MPs were either unresponsive or critical towards the bill (Trouw 2014). Political commentators characterized the bill “in addition to being rather silly – also harmful and immoral,” because it creates an underclass of “second-grade citizens” (NRC Next 2014). The Consultative Organ Caribbean Dutch (OCaN), one of the most important organizations offering a public platform for Caribbean Dutch people, even reiterated the argument that the bill is a direct violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Boerwinkel 2014). Political scientist Meindert Fennema is utterly confused as the current governmental party VVD is actually pursuing policies aimed at “fewer, fewer, fewer” Antilleans, while simultaneously the Dutch were outraged when the powerless MP Geert Wilders (1963-) (PVV) proposed to do the same with Moroccans (Fennema 2014). As anthropologist Guno Jones puts it: “This is so much more than just a little law to badger with” (Jones 2014a).

With this statement, Jones refers to the veiled, implicit and denied existence of institutionalized racism in the Netherlands (Jones 2014b: 331-332). At the same time, Bosman’s vague reference to desirable public behavior and the alleged threat Caribbean youngsters pose to Dutch morals seems to imply some sort of conception of Dutch national identity as a justification for exclusionary practices. What could the connection between the two be? Is there actually anything like Dutch national identity and has the history of the Caribbean any place in it? Humanity in Action took to the streets and tried to find out, but before we turn our attention to the interviews, let’s have a look at what has been published on the subject by our very own HIA network.  

Race, Dutch Slavery Past and Zwarte Piet: HIA Reports on Dutch National Identity

In 2011, Senior Fellows Benedicta Deogratias, Kyera Singleton and Casey Wojtalewicz reported on the discrepancy between policy and practice when it comes to racism in the Netherlands. One the one hand, Surinamese Dutch citizens living in the Netherlands are no longer considered to be a “problematic” ethnic minority in the eyes of the state. On the other, the majority of the white Dutch population still sees the members of the Surinamese community as outsiders, “due to the color of their skin.” As a rule, the Dutch seem to be utterly unaware of their own history of colonialism and slavery. Consequently, race (or ethnicity in Dutch discourse) as a marker for difference along the lines of individual identity is ignored or denied. It is almost a forbidden word in discussions about discrimination. As a result, racism is thought to be virtually non-existent in the Netherlands, but the Surinamese are “othered” by the white majority nonetheless. Not surprisingly, many of the Surinamese Dutch citizens feel excluded from “Dutchhood” and do not see themselves as real Dutch people (Deogratias, Singelton and Wojtalewicz 2011).  

In 2012, the severely lacking colonial awareness in the Netherlands was also a topic of discussion in the report by Senior Fellows Laura Boerhout, Mariska Jung and Paul Marcinkowski. Exemplified by the still yearly portrayed highly controversial figure of Black Pete (“Zwarte Piet”), the proud commemoration of the Dutch West Indies Trading Company (VOC) without mentioning slavery and the absence of the Caribbean countries on any present-day map of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the authors argue, the Dutch are scarcely able to come to terms with their Dutch colonial past. Again as a consequence, racism, while constituting a very real and very urgent problem, remains nothing more than a mere whisper within Dutch historical consciousness (Boerhout, Jung and Marcinkowski 2012; Mitchell, Ricardo and Sarajlic 2012). After all, the Dutch are the most tolerant people in the world, are they not?

Together with journalist Kevin Roberson, historian and founder of the Black Heritage Amsterdam Tours, Jennifer Tosch commented on the colonial absence from the self-image and self-understanding of the Dutch:

The challenge in the Islands is a legacy of slavery and colonialism. The Dutch don't see the connection, in how “under developing” the former colonies has crippled their ability to keep up with or advance economically. Instead, the Dutch government and many people agree, blame Blacks and say that they should work harder to improve their situations on the Islands, akin to the saying “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,” disavowing any institutional racism or the structure of race that the society was built upon (Tosch and Roberson 2014).

Recently, the book on Black Pete received another chapter with the presentation of the “new and improved” Black Pete by the Dutch Centre for Folk Culture and Immaterial Heritage (VIE) on Dutch national television. As you can see in the picture, Tosh’s and Roberson’s argument about the disavowment of racism in the Netherlands makes it possible for these “changes” to be actually proposed with a straight face without fundamentally reflecting on the deeper structures of racism within Dutch society. In response to the comment by a NOS-reporter that the figure is still portrayed as black, anti-racist activist Quincy Gario (1984-) said the following: 

This is just impossible! From day one, that has been the number one thing that people have been talking about (...). You can't bargain about racism. Racism underlying “black face,” underlying the origins of the Figure as we now know him is still not being recognized. Also not in what just has been presented. This is an utter failure. In essence, it's a preservation of the status quo (Gario 2014).

But how does ignorance about Dutch slavery past and denial of racism tie in with the idea of Dutch identity? Senior Fellows Patricia Hutton and René Koekkoek explored the concept and concluded that above all else, Dutch identity is contested to say the least. Nevertheless, in resonance with Velema’s and Wansink’s quotes, the authors argue that the Netherlands cannot do without “commonly shared norms and values for the social cohesion of society.” Reiterating the work by public administration scientist Paul Scheffer, Hutton and Koekkoek fear the emergence of an “ethnic underclass” that has been neglected by the Dutch government in terms of its civic integration. Therefore, demarcating what the Dutch identity would entail, Hutton and Koekkoek argue, would not automatically result in exclusionary practices, on the contrary even. Nevertheless, they refrain from actually formulating what the contents might be of these typically Dutch norms and values (Hutton and Koekkoek 2008). Why would that be?    

Bluntness, Financial Calvinism and Being on Time  

Multiculturalism for me is not a discussion: Should we have it or not. It is there. It’s a fact. It has aspects that are problematic and need to be improved, but it’s a fact and it should stay a fact.


Cihan Tekeli, philosopher, Islam specialist and educator at the Anne Frank House, brings a unique perspective into what frames Dutch identity. One of his most outstanding statements, aforementioned above, helps us visualize the dilemma of Dutch identity. Simply stated, Dutch identity, through the lens of the Bosman-bill, is the abhorrent denial of the multitude of identities which Dutch nationality is comprised of. This plethora is belittled into one identity that excludes the complex relationship of domination and enslavement that Dutch society practiced over the Antilles and other territories in its own past. The Bossman-bill helps illuminate Tekeli’s words by exemplifying this denial.

Tekeli goes on to mention how the bill is representative of the political landscape that exists here in the Netherlands. He reaffirms that in the PVV’s view, similar to Bossman’s, Dutch identity is a monolith and this introduction of an other, the Antilleans in Bosman’s case, can be a threat to such, despite the fact that the Antilles have been part of the Kingdom of Netherlands since the 17th century. To be more specific, this threat is to the “good morals” and “public interest” of the white majority that rules from The Hague. Consider the fact that the Antilles, to this day, is referred to as the “boeven-nest” — “nest of crooks” in English — is no surprise to this perceived threat of Antilleans being a possible taint to Dutch identity. Tekeli mentions that the use of words and terminology like “boeven-nest” aids in creating a certain type of sphere — one that rejects “crooks.” More importantly, Tekeli continues on to state that this policy is reflective of what politicians like Wilders and Bossman desire for immigrants: relentless assimilation. In Tekeli’s own words:

PVV has a clear view of what Dutch identity should be. They do not say it so explicitly but it’s there. The undertone is there. Anything that does not go back in the last couple of generations or anything before that, it’s what they call “autochtoon,” and “allochtoon” do not fall in that category as long as you are not extremely assimilated and prove it. You have to be assimilated, in their interpretation, and prove it; if you do not do that then you have to come back to prove it.

This assimilation takes the form of stripping one’s own associations to cultures and religions that are not the predominant in the Netherlands. The reference of “allochtoon” is another use of terminology to create what Tekeli noted as a sphere of rejection; although, Tekeli makes the distinction that the use of “allochtoon” is a mutual issue. Despite this mutual issue, he responds to it with rejection. He refuses to use the word as a way to rebuff categorization. He poses his response in the form of a question: “What is the goal? Why is there a need to say these words of ‘allochtoon’ and ‘autochtoon’”? 

Beyond his responses to assimilation, and Dutch identity, Tekeli addresses roots of the issues of Dutch perceived threat by looking inwards. When posited the question of what is Dutch identity, Tekeli answered with two points. The first point he explained as superficial ones as in having a Dutch passport and being registered here in the Netherlands. His second was that being Dutch is a sense of belonging. This sense of belonging is manifested in a culture that has links to character. That culture includes Dutch bluntness, or financial Calvinism, or as Tekeli contrasted to Tunisian culture, being more formal about the time when meeting someone. In addition, Tekeli insisted that the knowledge of the Dutch language is intrinsic to Dutch identity. These mannerisms are some of the things that make Tekeli culturally Dutch. In relation to his roots, Tekeli also spoke on immigrants and their contribu-tion to Dutch identity by stating: 

But if you look at immigrants and immigrants’ children, we also have a contribution we bring to this country that becomes slowly part of this culture. Morrocan, Turkish, Antillean, Surinamese, Polish cultures are part of Dutch society now. They are Dutch now. Whether we like it or not. 

This inclusion helps address a huge debate about the European identity and the threat that immigrants like Antilleans pose to it. Tekeli believes that the threat is perceived and rather the influence that immigrants bring are contributions and its problematic part needs to be addressed as a society in order to better the sense of belonging available to them. With this statement, Tekeli circumnavigates this issue of Dutch identity to welcome immigrants, and expand the definition of Dutch identity to one that is more culturally inclusive.

Dutch identity

We also interviewed a few people in the streets of the city center of Amsterdam as well as in Amsterdam East on the concept of Dutch identity and the Bosman bill. Interestingly enough, none of the people we approached had heard about the Bosman-bill before. The question of Dutch identity was hard to answer for most of the people. On the education and relation of slavery on contemporary society, the opinions differed a bit but most people agreed that colonial history has an affect and education is needed within the Dutch society. 

Vanessa, a Dutch girl from French American descent, described Dutch identity as the cultural experience of sports and Dutch festivities, the element of being proud as a nation. Apart from that, there is no identity. “There is no real Dutch, you are Dutch if you believe you are,” she states.  Anton, a young white man whom we approached in the city center, stated that the Dutch identity is what we share in common. He referred to cultural aspects as being direct in communication, watching your money, the village-like culture, soccer and other small things. Gisele, a middle-aged Surinamese Dutch woman we talked to in Amsterdam East, has a different opinion and related the Dutch identity to the Black Pete discussion. She said: “Dutch identity is being rigid and inflexible in attitude and thought (...) You will never be accepted as a Dutch citizen, you can get the formal requirements for citizenship, but you will always be allochtoon.”

This argument was also voiced by Henry, a middle aged man who identified himself as being solely Surinamese, because he was born there and also because “the Dutch’” do not consider him to be Dutch. He stated that although his children are all Dutch, because they were born here, people still don’t accept them as Dutch. With regards to the Bosman-bill he agreed with it in the sense that criteria should be put up. According to Henry: “People who come here have to abide by the rules.” When asked what these rules would be in his eyes, he gave the example of a cultural difference between Surinamese and people from the Islands those people are louder and freer whereas here this kind of behavior is not appreciated. The rules he talked about were also problematic to him. Some rules do not make sense to him. He gave the example of the punishment of a criminal act. “For example, if you do something you’re not supposed to and you [pointing to Wouter, who is white Dutch] do the same thing we will get punished differently. You would get two months and I would get four months for the same criminal act.”

A couple who were walking in the same neighborhood claimed that the Dutch identity simply does not exists, just like Máxima had said. There are so many cultures and peoples that you can’t really speak of one identity. Two Moroccan Dutch young men relate the idea of identity to history. According to one of them, the Dutch identity equals the Golden Age. Now it’s multicultural and there is no identity. His friend replied that in the cities it is different. Maybe if you go to the villages you will find the real Dutchmen: “Everyone knows each other, you visit each other, they still believe... I mean they are Christians.”

Former Dutch Antilles and Colonial Awareness

Most of the interviewees stated that the Islands were colonies and are part of the Kingdom but do not really know how the relations are between the Islands and the Netherlands. Except for Ms. Roos, who states that the Islands are still colonies because they still lack independence. 

In order to discuss the relations between the Islands and the Netherlands, we asked the same people the question on the Dutch slavery history and whether this still affects our society. Vanessa indicated that she had just learned a lot about slavery as she had final exams a few weeks ago. According to her: “Slavery does not play a role, maybe slavery does still exists elsewhere.” Anton had a similar answer when talking about the affect on society. According to him, people are still being treated unfair; they have to work hard but still no equal pay. On the Dutch slavery past, he said: “We had some slavery – traded in Indonesia – Norway and Germany and probably African slaves. But it’s hard to distinguish the people who were forced into labor and the ones that we were under contract.”

Henry and Gisele had a different take on Dutch colonial history. According to Gisele, slavery is barely mentioned in the history lessons. She said: “I can image that Dutch people don’t know what Surinamese and former colony citizens are doing in this country, because they don’t know the history.” “In Suriname for instance,” she said, “we were raised with the aim of going to the Netherlands that was considered the mother country. The Dutch people here don’t know that.” Henry points out that in Surinam history lessons are both on the Netherlands and Suriname whereas here only a few know about the relations within the Kingdom. He states that the Dutch should know more. It is because they don’t know the history and therefor have a different idea about us. Education could change that. 

The couple walking the streets of Amsterdam state that the implications of slavery are still present. Slavery still has an affect on the next generation of its victims. And the Black Pete tradition of December 5 comes back every year, and apparently it still plays a role. The Moroccan Dutch young men stated that the history is painful and commemoration will not do any good at all. The Dutch person can’t do anything about it now, they can’t repay damages; it has been too long ago and what will that do? With the aim of trying to discuss the importance of history, we asked them about the guest workers history. Only a few people know about that history they said maybe the older people that are 60 or 70 years but only in the bigger cities. “It’s important for people to know, since guest workers helped rebuild this country. They needed people to work hard here. My dad told me that he worked really hard, but the Dutch people didn’t really work that hard. The Dutch people were not used to working hard. The guest workers knew that in Morocco and Turkey there was no work and no bread on the table. They knew if he worked hard they could buy bread for the family and built a future for the children.”

Dutch Morals from Volendam

On the Bosman-bill and its requirement that one should not pose a threat to the public order and good morals, the opinions are diverse. Vanessa states that everyone has their own morals and indicated that she did not know what was meant with “good morals.” People should be granted a fresh start; it should not be that black and white. If she were to set the rules, then a test to see whether people are eligible for this country is enough. According to her, immigration should bring about positive change for them. She doesn’t know if there really is a cultural issue between the Dutch within the Kingdom. Anton said that he likes the use of criteria but finds “good morals and common interest” too vague and unclear. “When do you cross those terms when do you pose a threat?” he asked. According to him the only condition should be that people should have a future or a potential for future. In practice that would mean having a diploma or being good at something in order to contribute. 

Gisele stated that the Bosman-bill can be a violation of article one of the constitution because of the condition that police can hold and check the resident permit is discrimination. People will be held and checked because of their race. She also does not understand what is meant with good morals. “Maybe it means that their way of thought needs to be same as the people in Volendam. Which is also weird since they do a lot of drugs.” Another point she wanted to raise is the migration the other way around. The financial criteria for the Dutch to move might not be so strict in practice. Besides, if there should be any requirements, why not tell people to speak Dutch on the Islands. Henry has stated that people should stick to the rules but found some of the rules problematic. Lastly the couple states that the conditions are too vague and do not make any sense. These rules are just populist talk to gain seats, the man said. It really does not make any sense. 

In sum, when talking about “the” Dutch identity, the people we interviewed on the streets had different conceptions and proved that there is no uniform concept. The requirements for immigration for the Islands inhabitants who want to live in this side of the Kingdom are also too vague.

National Identity (?)

Identity is a tricky concept, particularly when talking about national identity. Supposedly, it is something that we all have, both as an individual and as a collective (on whatever level). We are born with it and we die while giving expression to it. Despite its permanency, it is also one of the most fluid things. It changes over time, has multiple layers or dimensions, differs from context to context and its meaning may even be unknown to those who have it. Indeed, you can also be wrong about your own identity. Above all else, identity is something that sets you apart from all others, because it makes you into what you are: a unique individual.

However, there is a paradox there. On the one hand, identity is presumed to be constant in its existence, innate to your humanity, while on the other it is thought to be in continuous flux. The concept of identity tries to fix that what cannot be fixed (Cooper 2005: 67-68 and Geschiere 2009: 31-32). What’s more, identity is first and foremost a concept that expresses difference rather than sameness. It is a mechanism through which we exclude others. It is a word that is used to demarcate our own body and our own consciousness from the outside world, just as a national identity sets our country apart from all of the other nations.

Therefore, the narrative of what that national identity entails is a very powerful tool to make it clear to the world who belongs and, especially, who does not. The concept of identity is highly politicized and has been put forward in and out of season by a multitude of institutions, parties and organizations. Little wonder then that the concept of Dutch identity and all of its derivatives is something that you would often find in debates concerning immigration, integration and cultural conflicts. It constitutes a potent and mobilizing historical filter that lets you select only the most suitable candidates for your in-group – if any. In practice, this comes down to a normative discussion about the ways in which “new-comers” deviate from the national norm and, consequentially, how far they must go to change themselves in order to be accepted.

Yet, there is a strange thing going on there. Because identity can only exist by the grace of difference (Lorenz 2004: 29-32), it can only express exclusion – at least on the national level. Only by making it known what is not considered part of the nation’s identity can the unique face of the nation be vaguely visualized in our minds. Because as soon as you would fix that identity by making it explicit, it would inevitably implode. The narrative of Dutch identity is therefore not a specific set of human characteristics or behavioral norms. How could it be? If you would say that the Dutch are particularly tolerant for instance, just by the logic of difference, it would automatically render all other nations absolutely intolerant. Rather, identity is the ostentatious silence in between the words and the faces within the nation and its discourse. An unspoken normative truth that connects the members of the in-group to the collective through a self-evident relationship to the nation (Schrover and Schinkel 2013: 1123-1126).

Since the beginning of the 1990s, this idea of a self-evident and natural belonging of (certain) individuals to the Dutch nation has received an influential foundation: the infamous and highly problematic concept of “autochthon.” Derived from the science of geography in 1971 by sociologist Hilda Verwey-Jonker, the term literally means something like “from this ground or soil.” This more or less translates into “those who came first.” Its logical counterpart, the “allochthon,” is therefore “from another ground or soil.” He or she is different in terms of race/ethnicity, culture, morality and religion, because he or she came from the outside. This supposed difference is even stronger when he or she is considered a non-Western “allochthon” (meaning having at least one parent from either Africa, Asia or South-America), a normative demarcation that can be traced back directly to Enlightenment-thinking, 19th century European imperialism and Dutch slavery past (Bosma 2009: 12).

Identification ≠ Identity

In April 2014, the VVD released another statement concerning the proclaimed moral superiority of, essentially, white Europeans if we remember that “allochthonous” people are either from South-America, Africa or Asia. As related by MP Malik Azmani (1971-), the VVD argued that:

Residents of the European Union cannot legally be obligated to sign [a contract of societal participation]. That is why I say: Let us differentiate between people from inside and outside of the EU (...). People from outside of the EU are much more removed from Dutch values than are EU-citizens (Besselink and Peulen 2014).

As Azmani’s statement shows, time and again it has been proven that, while the Dutch identity and its “values” are regarded as something eternal and obvious, it is never explained what they entail. Instead, let’s not focus on what we are or aren’t (and what they are or aren’t), but on who we – all Dutch citizens, nothing more, nothing less – want to be, to what ideals we want to aspire. Let’s regard identity not as a noun, but as a verb (Cooper 2005: 67-68). Not as a historical monologue, but as a never-ending and inclusive discussion. That is what democracy is: it is the moral obligation to keep listening and to keep talking, trying to find understanding. Because only then, when we accept that we’re all part of this glorious mess of humanity – which is just, let’s be honest, making it up as it goes – can we point out who’s left out of the discussion and which stories are denied access to our shared experience.   

To put it differently, the white Dutch cannot hide any longer behind the usual and stale response of saying: “Well, it wasn’t me. Maybe it was my ancestors, but I most certainly did not participate in slave trade. Why should I be bothered?” No, you didn’t. Congratulations. But consider where your privilege not to “experience” race comes from. Why white Dutch people do not “have” an ethnicity, so to speak. What the distinction between allochthon and autochthon is based on and why it is made in the first place. Why do we not learn about slavery in school (as intricate to the “marvels” of the VOC and the “Golden Age”)? Why are the former Dutch Antilles not part of any map of the Kingdom of the Netherlands? And please, don’t even start about Black Pete being black because of chimney soot. How the heck is it possible that the blatantly racist “Bosman-bill” is considered part of everyday practice in Dutch parliament? Do not refer to Dutch national identity, because it doesn’t exist, or try to defend it as a mechanism for inclusion, because it can’t, but try and explain where you want to go and who you want to be. History is change and we are part of as well as responsible for that change, wherever it is going.


Besselink, Nicole and Matthieu Peulen. “Einde Verblijf Immigrant die Nederlandse Norm Schendt”, Trouw, April 17, 2014.

Boerhout, Laura, Mariska Jung and Paul Marcinkowski. “Zwarte Piet, a Bitter Treat? Racial Issues in the Netherlands and the US”, Humanity in Action, 2012. Read here.

Boerwinkel, Gytha. “Wetsvoorstel Bosman is ‘vernederende behandeling’ in de zin van artikel 3 EVRM”, OCaN Nieuws, March 11, 2014. Read here.

Bosma, Ulbe. Terug uit de Koloniën: Zestig Jaar Postkoloniale Migranten en Hun Organisaties. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2009.

Cooper, Frederick. Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Deogratias, Benedicta, Kyera Singleton and Casey Wojtalewicz. “Race in the Netherlands: The Place of the Surinamese in Contemporary Dutch Society”, Humanity in Action, 2011. Read here.

Fennema, Meindert. “Ondertussen Regelt de VVD een Wet voor Minder Antillianen”, De Volkskrant, March 28, 2014.

Gario, Quincy. “Je Kunt Niet Polderen over Racisme”, NOS, June 11, 2014. Read here.

Geschiere, Peter. The Perils of Belonging. Autochthony, Citizenship and Exclusion in Africa and Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009.

Hutton, Patricia and René Koekkoek. “The Harsh Reality of Dutch Inclusiveness”, Humanity in Action, 2008. Read here.

Jones, Guno; e-mail message to authors, June 20, 2014a.

Jones, Guno. “Biology, Culture, ‘Postcolonial Citizenship’ and the Dutch Nation, 1945-2007” In Essed, Philomena and Isabel Hoving, eds. Dutch Racism. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 2014b.

Lorenz, Chris. “Towards a Theoretical Framework for Comparing Historiographies: Some Preliminary Considerations” In Seixas, Peter, ed. Theorizing Historical Consciousness. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Mitchell, Amela, Marie-Anne Ricardo and Belma Sarajlic. “Whitewashed Slavery Past? The (Lost) Struggle Against Ignorance about the Dutch Slavery History”, Humanity in Action, 2012. Read here.

Schrover, Marlou, and Willem Schinkel. “Introduction. The Language of Inclusion and Exclusion in the Context of Immigration and Integration” In Schrover, Marlou, and Willem Schinkel, eds. Ethnic and Racial Studies. London: Routledge, 2014.  

S.N. “VVD maakt een wet met tweederangs burgers”, NRC Next, March 7, 2014. Read here.

S.N. “Antillianenwet krijgt veel kritiek te verduren”, Trouw, March 13, 2014. Read here.

Tekeli, Cihan. Interview. June 21, 2014.

Tosch, Jennifer and Kevin Roberson; e-mail message to authors, June 20, 2014.

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. “Voorstel van wet van het lid Bosman”, Vergaderjaar 2011-2012, Ondernummer 2, Kamerstuknummer 33 325, The Hague, 2012.

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. “Memorie van Toelichting”, Vergaderjaar 2011-2012, Onder-nummer 3, Kamerstuknummer 33 325, The Hague, 2012.

Velema, Willem, and Hans Wansink. “Vaderlands gevoel geeft richting”, De Volkskrant, December 22, 2007. Read here.

Zorreguieta, Máxima. Speech at the presentation of the WRR-report ‘Identification with the Nether-lands.’ Den Haag, the Netherlands. September 24, 2007. Read here.


Explore More »

Share this Article

About This Article

HIA Program:

Netherlands Netherlands 2014


Related Media

College Club
by Mia Ozegovic, Netherlands 2014
Browse all content