This paper looks at second-generation immigrants and the effects of inevitable’ assimilation on their transnational ties. The dominant concept of transnationalism is strongly influenced by the experience of transmigrants moving back and forth between the sending and receiving countries or by immigrants involved in transnational activities. Research on second-generation Hindustanis in the Netherlands shows that their transnational ties are strong due to the ethnification of their community. However, their transnational ties are changing. The second-generation Hindustanis have a source culture and are developing new ties, while loosening relations with their parents’ country. Thus, transnationalism is assuming new forms, calling for a typology of different forms of transnational relations

No abstract

No abstract

This paper focuses on the labour disparities between Sub-Saharan African immigrants in the Netherlands, a hitherto undescribed ethnic group, and the native Dutch population. Using unique data with nationwide coverage, the analysis reveals that the labour market position of Sub-Saharan Africans displays an exceptionally large disparity with the native Dutch, compared with discrepancies found in previous research on other immigrant groups. The outcomes also show great differences across the Sub-Saharan groups with Cape Verdeans and South Africans deviating the least from the native Dutch, Ghanaians occupying an intermediate position, while people from Somalia, Eritrea, Congo, Sudan and Sierra Leone are in the worst position. Most importantly, we found that the conventional human capital model does not account for much of the disparity between Sub-Saharan Africans and the native Dutch, even when the model is expanded with language proficiency as an additional variable. Considering these findings, we suggest that alternative explanations, such as society of origin, the operation of norm images and ethnic concentration in specific sectors impeding mobilities should be researched further.

As a concept, ethnogenesis presupposes a category of individuals that are not a group becomes a group. Most accounts of ethnogenesis exhibit two features: they confuse ethnogenesis with the resilience of ethnicity, and they describe the “emergence” of ethnic groups as a response to external circumstances. This paper deviates from these perspectives by adopting a primordial approach, arguing that internal rather than external forces generate group cohesion. I establish three related propositions: First, while the debate between the so-called “circumstantialists” and “primordialists” suggests that these perspectives can be used interchangeably depending on scholarly preference, I argue that a “primacy” holds in favor of the primordial perspective. Second, I assert that this primordial perspective must be redefined, since ethnogenesis always incorporates “external” elements, thus changing and adapting to specific social and physical ecologies. Consequently, an ethnic group is constituted by the content of the ethnicity which functions as “boundaries.” Third, I contend that the emergence of primordial (though adjusted) ethnicity is not a “natural” process but instead requires actors that shape it, and that the initiatives of ethnic leaders are crucial in this regard. These propositions are established through a comparison of British Indians in the three former Caribbean plantation colonies of Suriname, Guyana, and Jamaica.