This article examines the migratory movement from the Netherlands to South Africa and the associated migration policies in both countries over the years 1910 to 1961. Migration acts as a lens through which shifting constructions of national, transnational and racial identities can be observed. Depending on the politicians in charge, the contribution of Dutch migrants to the South African nation was alternately framed in terms of their white, civilised Europeanness (as opposed to black, uncivilised Africanness), and in terms of their alleged 'kinship' (stamverwantschap) with the Afrikaners (as opposed to the British). Under the restrained immigration policy of the Nationalist Party in the 1950s this gave Dutch immigrants a privileged position regarding admission to South Africa, and it gave South Africa a special appeal as country of destination for Dutch emigrants. This changed only when the ethnic identification with white Afrikaners, and European settlers in general, since 1960 gradually gave way to an internationally shared political identification with the struggles of black Africans against apartheid. By studying the migration dynamics between both countries we may gain insight into the making and unmaking of both Dutch and South African national and racial identifications, against the backdrop of a colonial heritage.

No abstract

No abstract

Many historians believe that the aim of their work is to produce an objective and accurate reconstruction of the past, disposed of moral and political judgements. Analysing various scandals and controversies regarding the history and memory of World War II , Dutch colonialism and the Dutch involvement in Srebrenica, the authors aim to show that pleas to free historiography from the traditional patriotic moral schemes did not led to a supposed ‘scientific neutrality’. In contrary, we saw other values rise to predominance, stemming from the common sense idea that most people just try to survive and that life actually depends fully on fate. Within this ‘grey perspective’ any notion of social and moral responsibility is dissolved, while at the same time perpetrators and victims are implicitly equated. To escape the trap of a naive empiricism and to avoid traditional patriotic moralism as well as the ethical indifference of what has been called the ‘grey perspective’, the authors point to more sophisticated strategies to assess the (changing) attitudes, beliefs and acts of historical personae, departing from a multifocal perspective, just like Saul Friedlander did in his magnum opus on the Third Reich and the Jews.